Introduction

There is no reason we cannot enjoy having belief systems without shooting ourselves in the foot in the process.  But the requisite due diligence seems to be lacking.   Making a stand can and should be a good thing.  What could possibly be more natural than strong belief systems rooted in genuine search and questioning?  It's when strong belief systems develop without that due diligence that the problems begin.  Call this shortcoming what you like.  People call it different things.  I think "cheerleading" is a pretty good fit.  As we shall see, it is a problem that extends beyond religious values, running a broad gamut from the toeing of political party lines to extreme nationalism, where pom-pom waving has become endemic.  The cheerleader, a product of the popular culture and mainstream media, is fixated upon, if not obsessed with, the actions of other groups, yet remains relatively unconcerned with the equivalent corruption demonstrated by his own affiliation, outside the occasional, token criticism.  In the realm of politics, the experienced cheerleader takes great pride in casting his votes, even with the full knowledge that his life has never been significantly different when the political nemesis was in power.  So why such vehemence towards them?

Blind faith and realpolitik remain dominant mindsets in our culture today.  And what are the chances that such things will be enduring, positive forces in the world?  What are the likely effects of allowing such nonsensical, contentious, even patently false, if not bordering upon absurd, ideologies into our thinking?   When our churches ask us to believe that we are "God's chosen people" or the "one true religion", and our President's State of the Union address has come to resemble a pep rally or revival meeting, isn't it reasonable to wonder if our participation really makes sense, if there aren't perhaps better ways to fulfill our civic duty, and at what point we become our own jailers?


Some History of Elite Rule

In summation, the system is doing what it was designed to do.  A myriad of historical events attesting to this mirrors an underlying legal framework, which in turn mirrors a strong philosophical, educational tradition.   The system is elitist by design.   So it should surprise no one that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had the full support of the Bush administration when Rumsfeld reported the Pentagon had "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars back in 2001, or that the Obama administration fully supported the FED and the nations largest banks in 2008 when they refused to divulge the recipients of trillions of taxpayer bailout funds.  Nor should the myriad of other decidedly undemocratic events in our history seem unusual.   Naturally the corporate media circus responds on cue to the demands of "the wealth of the nation", to borrow from James Madison.  They understand their role in damage control all too well, as well as their role in fear mongering.  The "sky's going to fall" don't you know?  This is a matter of "grave national security." 

The Counterculture and the Advent of Internet Technology

Computers and internet technology had the distinct pleasure of coming into the mainstream under the cloak of an egalitarian, communitarian social vision.   It seems the extent to which new technologies and social movements are planned by elites, as opposed to co-opted later on, while interesting, is not particularly instructive.  What seems more meaningful is that, in the end, the results tend to be the same, and decidedly undemocratic.  Similarly, whether these results stem from the mainstream values or from counterculture values, once again, is not particularly important.  One way or another, power begets power,   In this case, a technology thought of as a great equalizer, as the answer to an ailing culture dominated by corporate greed and government corruption, turned out to be a godsend for both Big Brother and big corporate marketing.


Greenwashing

What do big industrial and financial interests have in common with "environmental" NGOs?   Way more than they should.

Eerily reminiscent is the Kyoto Accord, which bestows an air of legitimacy to the cutting of  indigenous people off of their ancestral lands to create "clean development mechanisms" (eg; hydroelectric dams) and "carbon sinks" to generate "offsets" so that the giant corporations can purchase the right to continue polluting.  How well does this bode for the credibility of the "environmental" movement if it promotes displacing third world peoples, who have some of the smallest carbon footprints in the world, to make way for big industry, who have some of the largest, so they can buy the right to continue polluting ...  so we can "save the planet"?

In global warming discussions, just about everyone acknowledges the big energy firms that would love to continue polluting unabated which are more than happy to fund the requisite polluter friendly studies.  But what about the gargantuan financial interests on the other side?  It's amazing how often this is left out of "progressive" discussions.  What about the carbon market and its potential?  Often alluded to as a new fiat currency, and quite possibly the next sub prime bubble, carbon credits are expected to eclipse both gold and oil, possibly becoming a 10 trillion dollar market at maturity according to Richard Sandor, the founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange ("CCX") who is also known as the  "father of carbon trading".   And Sandor is also a pioneer in the area of derivative financial instruments, credited with having "brought derivatives to the agricultural, insurance, and utilities sectors."  

Attacks of September 11, 2001

Without a doubt, there are some nutty theories that have found fertile ground in cyberspace, and even the mainstream press to a certain degree, regarding what happened on September 11, 2001.   But this does not relieve us of our responsibility to think, especially about things of such great significance.  We are invited, even encouraged, to alleviate this responsibility by the so-called "official story," along with the sheer lunacy of some of the so-called "conspiracy theories."   Conspiracy theories are not the answer.  But neither is groupthink. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask yourself what you really believe and, perhaps more importantly, why you believe it?  How many of us sell out to realpolitik? 

The truth is that the investigation that produced the so-called "official story" was an absolute train wreck.  We should have gotten an independent, cross disciplinary, international body for an investigation of this magnitude, and we didn't get it.  What we got was George W. Bush, the self-proclaimed "decider," appointing the members of the 911 Commission.  And at Bush's own insistance, he was allowed to testify exclusively in the presence of VP Dick Cheney, and neither one of them under oath.  And this meeting was permitted to be dubbed a "private meeting."   As the entire world looked on, here is how the great beacon of freedom would comport itself, as it was busy "making the world safe for democracy" overseas.

Tolerating the gross negligence and malfeasance of the 911 Commission only encourages speculation and conspiracy theories.   The victims and their families deserve a decent explanation.   The casualties of  the so-called "theater of wars" with "no end in sight", for which the 911 attacks were the pretext, also deserve a decent explanation, as do their family members.  And last, the American citizenry deserve a decent explanation.  Scandals and government cover-ups have already occurred many times in the past.   Many are well documented, which means many people are aware of them.   It is therefore vitally important that we get a serious investigation which instills confidence in the people, instead of a blatant sense of carelessness.

Where should a new, real investigation begin?  It has to begin with reconciling our utter failure to prevent the attacks.   Let's face it, it seems important that we be able to reconcile how the so-called "mastermind" of these attacks could outsmart the largest and most sophisticated military/intelligence apparatus in the world, at least for anyone not predisposed to magical thinking and Disney style movie plots.

Conclusion

What we are going to see from leadership going forward is advocation for the same old realpolitik and magical thinking.  We'll see the same specious pretext, insinuating that countervailing forces are hard at work for our benefit, and that the political mudslinging, soap-operatic pom-pom waving, and log-rolling is of real value, helpful to the community, and validating to the individual.  Hopefully, what we won't have is a lot of people buying into it.  We regurgitate prefabricated ideological scripts like wind-up toys to our own detriment and imprisonment.  The truth is that the system was designed to favor establishment elites, who have long since looked upon the will of the people as dangerous.  Power begets power.  It always has and it always will.  No amount of effort, belief, faith, magic, or nauseatingly stale rhetoric can ever change that in any sustainable sort of way.  Sure, it may help us feel better.  But only at great cost.  Until we get that monkey off our backs, we continue to play the role of our own jailers.

The electric car is finally making a comeback, after its debut in the 1830s.   I'm sure there are a thousand or so culture serving ways to explain the hiatus without using the word "oligarchy".  And I'm sure many of these are perpetuated so that the myth of "freedom and democracy" can endure.  But "oligarchy" is a lot shorter, more to the point, and closer to the truth.  Acknowledging the true origins of our system, and its permanent, inherent inequity, empowers us in a number of important ways.  Any benefits of political action have a very strong tendency to be outweighed by their costs.  Sure, there are some things that can be changed working within the confines of a corrupt political apparatus.  But very little, and certainly nothing fundamental.  There will never be any real degree of popular participation.  The system was designed to prevent that, and is maintained that same way.  We are ever encouraged to busy ourselves trying to reverse the flow of the river, instead of diverting its flow to meet the needs of the family and the local community.