President Pivot Prepares to Screw Old and Infirm

A master demagogue devoid of any principles.

by DAVE LINDORFF
President Obama ran for president promising change. What his backers didn’t realize was that he wasn’t talking about changing America for the better. He was talking about changing his position whenever he found himself in a confrontation with Republicans. There’s a reason that beginning with Obama’s 2008 campaign, and on through the past five years of his presidency, we have gotten used to a presidential behavior called “pivoting.”

Pivoting, as applied to President Obama and his administration, is a euphemism for surrendering quickly on a seeming position of principle, strength or tradition, and moving in an entirely different, and often treacherous direction that betrays what before appeared to be a principle.

With the US having just lost two wars in the Middle East, for example, last year the president announced that he was “pivoting” away from more war to shifting America’s military to Asia. That hasn’t worked out so well either, so I’m guessing we’ll probably soon see a new pivot, shifting the military focus perhaps to South America?

[pullquote]Republicans, who since the creation of both Social Security and Medicare have been seeking to gut or kill these two key progressive programs, are now holding a debt ceiling gun to Obama’s head demanding that he join them in cutting them.  The problem is that, lacking any principle, in order to “save” the US economy from a default on trillions of dollars in bond debt, he now has a perfect excuse to do what will make his Wall Street backers happy.[/pullquote]

Back in 2009 and 2010, when the economy was tanking, and President Obama was spending so much time promoting his health care “reform” agenda, on multiple occasions he and his press office would announce that he was “pivoting” to jobs, or to dealing with the unemployment crisis. These pivots wouldn’t amount to anything, because later he’d pivot to another issue and drop the focus on jobs.

Pivoting, it turns out, is really a way of saying that he doesn’t have any real commitment to some issue, but is going to pretend to focus on it for a while.

It’s characteristic of a guy who really doesn’t stand for anything, but tries to look like he does.

That is dangerous in the present moment, with a hard core of Congressional Tea Party fanatics leading the Republicans in the House in extorting the government with the threat of default by refusing raise the national debt limit — a bizarre situation that no other country faces because no other country has such a law requiring the government to keep its total borrowing below an arbitrary limit set annually by Congress.

Up to now, President Obama had claimed, seemingly with conviction, that he would not allow the US government and economy to be “held hostage” to the debt ceiling. He has said repeatedly during this manufactured crisis, again seemingly with conviction, that he would not negotiate with Republicans on anything to do with the budget until they passed a “clean bill” raising the debt ceiling, with no budget cut amendments or conditions attached.

Now he appears to be “pivoting” away from that position, with the White House and the president saying that he is “likely” to accept a proposal by House Republicans to raise the debt ceiling just enough to keep the government solvent for six more weeks, during which time, the president has to agree to discuss ways to “cut spending” and during which time the government would still remain closed (of course excluding the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and the rest of the national security state).

So much for refusing to negotiate while the government and economy are being held hostage.

If this were an airplane hijacking, with some wackos or terrorists holding a planeload of passengers on the tarmac demanding to have the plane refueled and a $10 million dollars strapped to the landing gear, Obama, despite a “no bargaining with hostage-takers” pledge, would be fueling the plane and negotiating the size of the cash in the hostage-taker’s package.

There is a very real danger here. For years, President Obama, who as a candidate in September 2008, addressing a convention of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), vowed never to cut Social Security, never to cut the cost-of-living adjustment to benefits and never to raise the retirement age. Now he seems ready to “pivot” and do exactly that.

During the 2008 campaign Obama denounced Republican presidential candidate John McCain for “suggesting that the answer to the growing pressure on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age.” He promised, “I will do neither,” and called instead for raising the cap on the level of wages subject to the FICA payroll tax.

In recent years, however, once securely in office, President Obama has “pivoted” away form that promise, talking instead of a “Grand Bargain” in which Social Security and Medicare would be put on the chopping block, with future benefits to retirees being trimmed, the retirement age increased, and with Medicare too getting cut back.

How convenient for this whirling dervish of a president. With Republicans, who since the creation of both Social Security and Medicare have been seeking to gut or kill these two key progressive programs, holding a debt ceiling gun to his head demanding that he join them in cutting them, in order to “save” the US economy from a default on its trillions of dollars in bond debt, he has a perfect excuse to do what will make his Wall Street backers happy. As for the vast majority of Americans who oppose this heist, he can claim that the Republicans made him do it. Why would he refuse to bargain while being held hostage? He wants to be a hostage.

A man of principle could never do such a thing. He’d stare down the Republican hostage takers, who are widely seen by most Americans for the extortionists they are, and call their bluff on the threatened default. If they let the country go over the cliff, he’d stand on principle, cite the 14th Amendment, which in Section 4 requires him to insure that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Based on that amendment, he would just order the Treasury Department to continue honoring US debt obligations as before, ignoring the debt ceiling (which is after all simply a law passed by Congress in 1917), and he’d dare the House to impeach him.

But the president is a pivoter, not a man of principle, and he is pivoting once again.

Already as the October 17 deadline approaches, at which point we’re led to believe the US Treasury will not be able to redeem bonds coming due, the stage is being set, with the president ready to accept a short-term rise in the debt ceiling in return for his willingness to discuss unspecified short and long-term cuts in federal spending.

It’s highly unlikely that the president would go this route, only to make a few small cuts in government operations, and then have to face the crisis again in another six weeks. Far more likely is that he’ll use this respite to strike that not-so-“Grand” Bargain that he has spoken of before, screwing the elderly with a cut in the inflation adjustment of benefits going forward, screwing younger workers with a significant cutback in future Social Security benefits and perhaps a requirement that they work more years in order to get them, and cutting back on Medicare, the “single payer” health program the US already has in place that has been providing medical care for the elderly and disabled for nearly half a century.

Only a massive campaign of protest by the public can prevent this sell-out by our endlessly pivoting president.

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Yellen: Same old same old, although burgo feminists will cheer.

by Stephen Lendman

On Wednesday, Obama nominated Janet Yellen as Fed chair. She’s currently vice chairwoman. Senate confirmation is certain. It’s rubber-stamp.  She’ll succeed Ben Bernanke. On January 31, his second four-year term ends.

In its hundred year history, Yellen will be the first female Fed chair. According to the Central Bank Directory (CBD), 17 others head central banks globally. CBD lists 177 from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

Yellen may be the richest central bank head. Her reported investments were at least $4.8 million in 2012. Estimates range up to around $13 million. 

A year later, her wealth may be millions higher. She’s privy to inside information. She helps make it. She’s able to take full advantage. So can other Fed governors. They’re all millionaires.  They want sustained easy money to make more of it. They want in on the gravy train. They want maximum benefits accruing to them.  So do congressional members. The Senate is known as a millionaire’s club. Half or more of all House members are millionaires. 

Some congressional members and high-level appointed bureaucrats have extraordinary wealth. They want policies affording them maximum benefits.  Bernanke will be remembered as the economy wrecker of last resort. Throughout his tenure, money printing madness substituted for stimulative growth policies.

He helped engineer the greatest wealth transfer in history. Grand theft America reflects it. America’s 1% never had it better.  Bankers, major corporations, big investors, and high net worth individuals alone benefitted. They did so at the expense of most others. A previous article said:

When finance capitalism prospers at the expense of ordinary people, economies are hollowed out in the process. Neofeudalism follows.  Ordinary Americans were swindled. They lost their well-being and futures. Monied interests benefit at their expense. Regressive Fed policy bears much responsibility. Congressional and administration malfeasance shares blame.

Bernanke looted America. He did so for nearly eight years. Obama praised him, saying: He’s “the epitome of calm, and against the volatility of global markets he’s been a voice of wisdom and a steady hand.” 

He took “bold action.” He “shore(d) up our banks and (got) credit flowing again.” Obama omitted explaining who benefitted and who lost out entirely.  He claimed “American workers and families will have a champion in Janet Yellen.” She’s “the kind of person who makes everybody around her better.”

She’s “extremely well qualified.” She’s “renowned for her good judgment.” She’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

She “pledge(d) to do (her) utmost to keep that trust and meet the great responsibilities to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and a strong and stable financial system.”

“While we have made progress, we have farther to go. The mandate of the Federal Reserve is to serve all the American people.”

“We can help ensure that everyone has the opportunity to work hard and build a better life.” 

“We can ensure that inflation remains in check and doesn’t undermine the benefits of a growing economy. We can and must safeguard the financial system.”

“The Fed has powerful tools to influence the economy and the financial system, but I believe its greatest strength rests in its capacity to approach important decisions with expertise and objectivity, to vigorously debate diverse views, and then to unite behind its response.” 

“The Fed’s effectiveness depends on the commitment, ingenuity, and integrity of the Fed staff and my fellow policymakers. They serve America with great dedication.”

Economist John Williams is an expert on government data. He reports accurately on unemployment, GDP, inflation and other federal statistics.  He said Bernanke’s “been tap dancing on a land mine since 2008.” 

“He has avoided detonating an intensified banking-system crisis, so far, but the cost has been that of locking the Fed into near-perpetual quantitative easing and monetization of US Treasury debt, with horrendous implications for future domestic inflation and US dollar debasement.”

“Crises in the economy, financial markets and systemic-solvency continue, with the post-2008 panic environment little moved towards sustainable and renewed normal activity, despite the fancy footwork.”

It’s wishful thinking to believe America’s “fiscal issues had been resolved or the crisis contained.”

A “fiscal disaster” approaches. Williams sees continued currency debasement. Eventually it’ll be “complete,” he believes. Global markets will “increasingly absorb that reality.”

Dollar selling pressure “should become intense.” Its global reserve currency status may be lost.

Underlying precious metals fundamentals are strong. Artificial price restraints reflect market manipulation naked short selling. Real value will win out. Prices eventually will soar.  Paul Craig Roberts calls America “totally discredited.” It lost all credibility. It won’t regain it. Before yearend or “almost certainly in 2014, the US will face severe economic crisis” conditions.

He cites longterm dollar debasement. Fed money printing madness. Bailing out banks too big to fail. Doing it “regardless of the adverse impact on domestic and world economies and holders of Treasury debt.”

“Collapsing job opportunities and a sinking economy” reflect today’s America, he believes. What’s ongoing is a crisis “too large for the available intelligence, knowledge, and courage to master.”

“When the proverbial s..t hits the fan, the incompetent and corrupt Federal Reserve and the incompetent and corrupt US Treasury will have no more credibility than Obama and John Kerry.”

Fed/Treasury/administration/congressional policies destroyed “a livable future.” Coverup and denial can’t hide what’s too visible and real.  Roberts expects greater than Great Depression harshness coming. It’s baked in the cake. Things will be much worse ahead than now.

According to the Washington Post:

Yellen was the obvious choice if – and only if – you believe that the current direction of the nation’s powerful central bank is the correct one for the country.”

She’s been much more than “an engineer of the Fed’s policies of ‘quantitative easing’ and ‘forward guidance.’ “

She’s been “a consistent voice to go further.” She assures continued dollar debasing.

New York Times editors praised her appointment. She has “credibility to lead the Fed,” they said. She displays “sound judgment.”

“Her nomination is a bright spot in a week dominated by the threat of a default from failure to raise debt ceiling. The Fed would be in good hands under her leadership.”

Her strong economy/sound financial world is pure fantasy. She’s “honored and humbled” to accelerate business as usual.  Her mandate assures worse than ever human misery. Safeguarding America’s financial system involves intensifying the greatest wealth heist in human history.

“Mr. President,” she said, “thank you for giving me this opportunity to continue serving the Federal Reserve and carrying out its important work on behalf of the American people.”

She omitted explaining her mandate involves transferring maximum wealth to America’s 1% already with too much. 

It’s creating a ruler/serf society. It’s proving the American dream is pure fantasy.  George Carlin once said “(i)t’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

Politicians, high-level bureaucrats, Fed officials, and corporate bosses don’t give a damn about ordinary people. It shows in their policies.  They’re wrecking America’s economy more than already. They’re transforming it into a dystopian backwater. 

They’re creating human misery on an unimaginable scale. Fed policy proves women can be as ruthless as men. Carlin set the record straight.  He said America’s ruling class “want(s) obedient workers people just smart enough to run machines and do paperwork.”

“And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly sh..ty jobs with lower pay, longer hours, reduced benefits, overtime (without compensation), and pensions that disappear the minute you go to collect.

“And now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money.” 

“They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it.” 

“They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this f..king place! It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it!”

“It’s the same big club telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy.”

“The game is rigged and” too few “notice.”

“Good honest hardworking people (keep) elect(ing) (these crooks) who don’t give a” damn about popular interests.

America’s ruling class “count(s) on” it. Ignorance and dismissiveness serve them well. Hardline viciousness targets resisters.  Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff once said about America:

“What a country!” In Soviet Russia, “government controlled corporations. In America, corporations control government.”  Whatever they want they get. The Fed is Wall Street’s handmaiden. Americans get the best democracy money can buy.  Don’t expect Yellen’s Fed to change things. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.

Expect them to praise what demands condemnation. Managed news misinformation works that way. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.  It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

“Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.”—Lenin

By Moti Nissani, PhD, Veterans Today

Note: This new version of an older article is re-posted because it (i) is relevant to the coming revolution, (ii) contains a substantial revision, and (iii) provides background and rationale for the sixth part of my “Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror.”

Summary:  This essay argues that revolutionaries can draw two valuable lessons from history.  First, they must realize once and for all that electoral politics in the USA cannot possibly bring meaningful change, and hence, that a more radical strategy is required.  Second, to survive, to retain their relevance, to earn the gratitude of future generations, the liberty, environmental, social justice, and peace camps must merge into a single revolutionary movement.

 No Change Can be Expected from American Elections

“What is the use of voting?  We know that the machines of both parties are subsidized by the same persons, and therefore it is useless to turn in either direction.”—Woodrow Wilson

“If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” ― Mark Twain

History reinforces the view that nothing can be expected from electoral politics in America (and in most other countries of the world).  If change ever comes to our shores, it cannot possibly be brought about by politics as usual.

Many of my acquaintances, and many writers in the alternative media, put their faith in electoral politics.  They feel, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it makes a difference whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected, that it makes sense to sue the government for one or another gross violation of the public interest or common decency.  They fail to notice that most of our presidents, governors, and mayors, most of our “elected” representatives at the local, state, and federal levels, most of our judges—are puppets of the men in the shadows (a few international banking families and their lieutenants in huge corporations, governments, armed forces, and intelligence services).

Others acquaintances, a bit more sophisticated but still profoundly misinformed about the nature of American politics, reject the corrupt two-headed party system out of hand, yet put their trust in the electoral process itself and in the ability of friends of the American people (as opposed to the traitors, swindlers, sycophants, and psychopaths who now infest most public offices of this land) to gain political or judicial office and bring about meaningful change.  That trust is touching, but it fails to acknowledge incontestable political realities.  To campaign for a Ron Paul, or a Dennis Kucinich, or a Jesse Ventura, or a Eugene Debs, or Jesus of Nazareth himself, in this system is utterly futile.  A few crystalline raindrops cannot disinfect a cesspool.

The reasons for this futility, the reasons it is misguided in principle and perhaps even immoral to take part in electoral politics are many.  For the moment, I can only offer a summary statement and some supporting documentation for the seven interacting factors (there could be more, but at this writing I can only think of seven) that render electoral politics in America a sad joke (for a more detailed review of the first three factors, please consult this).

1.  Information

“I am sure that I never read any memorable news in the newspaper.”–Henry David Thoreau (Walden, 1854)

“American Journalism is a class institution, serving the rich and spurning the poor.”–Upton Sinclair (The Brass Check, 1919)

Almost all conventional sources of information—schools, universities, books, movies, newspapers, TV, radio—are under the thumb of the men in the shadows.  Most of us, therefore, end up voting against our own convictions and interests.  For example, in 1919 Upton Sinclair (The Brass Check, p. 9) already sizzled:

“The social body to which we belong is at this moment passing through one of thegreatest crises of its history . . . What if the nerves upon which we depend for knowledge of this social body should give us false reports of its condition?”

Many people put their trust in experts, not realizing the centuries-long dependence of academics and intellectuals on the bankers and their lieutenants.  Arthur Schopenhauer:

 ”Party interests are vehemently agitating the pens of so many pure lovers of wisdom. . . .  Truth is certainly the last thing they have in mind. . . .  Philosophy is misused, from the side of the state as a tool, from the other side as a means of gain. . . . Who can really believe that truth also will thereby come to light, just as a by-product? . . .  Governments make of philosophy a means of serving their state interests, and scholars make of it a trade.”

This is even truer today, and especially so when it comes to disciplines that directly affect the bankers.  As just one example, an article in the left-of-center mainstream press explains “how the federal reserve bought the economics profession:”

“The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni, and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession. . . . This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists.”

William Hogarth, “Scholars Listening to a Lecture,” 1736

Prof. Anatal Fekete provides a less polite characterization:

“The light has gone out at the great American universities as far as monetary science is concerned.  Through bribe, blackmail, and attrition all upright and serious monetary economists were bumped from their academic chairs.  The Great Chinese Cultural Revolution was a picnic in comparison to the Great American Cultural Revolution eliminating monetary economics from the curriculum.”

I wish to make the point clear: Information nowadays is controlled everywhere and always.  For instance, the bankers reserve to themselves the right of censoring all academic publishing (not only in economics, history, or political “science,” but also in the natural sciences) under the guise of the referee system.  And here is another typical example, this time from the strait-jacketed world of children book publishing.   Madeleine L’Engle looks back:

“A Wrinkle in Time was almost never published.  You can’t name a major publisher who didn’t reject it.  And there were many reasons.  One was that it was supposedly too hard for children.  Well, my children were 7, 10, and 12 while I was writing it.  I’d read to them at night what I’d written during the day, and they’d say, “Ooh, mother, go back to the typewriter!”  A Wrinkle in Time had a female protagonist in a science fiction book, and that wasn’t done.  And it dealt with evil and things that you don’t find, or didn’t at that time, in children’s books.  When we’d run through forty-odd publishers, my agent sent it back.  We gave up.  Then my mother was visiting for Christmas, and I gave her a tea party for some of her old friends.  One of them happened to belong to a small writing group run by John Farrar, of Farrar, Straus & Giroux, which at that time did not have a juvenile list.  She insisted that I meet John any how, and I went down with my battered manuscript.  John had read my first novel and liked it, and read this book and loved it.  That’s how it happened.”

Recommended Starting References: 1. Sinclair, U. 1919. The Brass Check. 2. Bagdikian, B. H. 1987. The Media Monopoly. 3. Huxley, Aldous, 1958.  Brave New World Revisited.  4. Carlin, George. Who Really Runs America?  5. Loewen, James, 1995.  Lies my Teacher Told me.  5. Nissani, M.  Media Coverage of the Greenhouse Effect. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 21: 27-43.

 2. Sunshine Bribery

In the USA, bribery is institutionalized.  In fact, if one looks only at the sheer quantity of wealth being stolen from the people, one can perhaps surmise that the USA is the most corrupt country that has ever existed.  Bribery is implemented principally through campaign financing, then complemented by such things as lucrative speaking and publishing arrangements after leaving office and by invitations to serve on the boards of the corporations that benefited from the ex-politician’s or ex-judge’s duplicity.  As a result, politicians and judges gain adoration and millions, while a handful of banking families and their thousands of corporations gain extraordinary power and trillions.

Over the years we have gotten used to occasional outbursts on this issue (please consult this source for countless quotations).  For instance, in 1987, Robert Byrd, then Senate majority leader, appealed to his colleagues:

“It is my strong belief that the great majority of senators–of both parties–know that the current system of campaign financing is damaging the Senate, hurts their ability to be the best senator for this nation and for citizens of their respective States that they could be, strains their family life by consuming even more time than their official responsibilities demand, and destroys the democracy we all cherish by eroding public confidence in its integrity.  If we do not face a problem of this magnitude and fix it, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the tragic results.”

Political scientists Adamany and Agree share that view:

 “[The] political finance system  . . .  undermines the ideals and hampers the performance of American democracy . . . . Officials  . . .  are  . . .  captives of the present system. Their integrity and judgment are menaced—and too often compromised—by the need to raise money and the means now available for doing it . . . . The pattern of giving distorts American elections: candidates win access to the electorate only if they can mobilize money from the upper classes, established interest groups, big givers, or ideological zealots. Other alternatives have difficulty getting heard. And the voters’ choice is thereby limited. The pattern of giving also threatens the governmental process: the contributions of big givers and interest groups award them access to officeholders, so they can better plead their causes . . . . The private financing system  . . .  distort[s] both elections and decision making. The equality of citizens on election day is diluted by their inequality in campaign financing. The electorate shares its control of officials with the financial constituency.”

A 2013 update:

“Pretty much every politician in the western world is basically an employee of the ruling class, which is made up of a handful of traditionally powerful families including the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.”

 Recommended Starting Reference:   Nissani, M.  Brass-tacks Ecology.

3. Human Nature

We are not only indoctrinable, but seem to enjoy being brainwashed (how many of us abstain from commercials and TV?).  We are not as open-minded as we need to be, nor do we readily surrender convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.  More often than not, we prefer obedience and conformity to individualism and critical thinking.  Most of us lack the self-confidence, and perhaps the inborn taste, to detect quality on our own—in food, architecture, music, drama, paintings, literature, or politics.  The vast majority of the still-reading public (which is itself a small minority) depends on the bankers for their choice of books, instead of trusting their own tastes and proclivities.  Many of us have accepted the bankers’ absurd self-serving notion that crass materialism, endless accumulation of money and power, consumerism, specialization, and selfishness hold the keys to personal fulfillment.

Moreover, these failings are magnified by the diminution—probably deliberate—of our very humanity.  Our bodies nowadays are loaded with synthetic chemicals and radioactive materials.  Our brains are loaded with heavy metals (e.g., mercury, lead) and thousands of commercials, infomercials, trivialities, and lies.  It is no accident that the bankers facilitate prescription and illegal drug use in the USA, for such use clearly serves their interests.  The bankers and their allies discourage us from ever getting even close to dissident literature, classical music, folk music, critical or holistic thinking, compassion, and non-conformity.  By getting us addicted to TV and artless movies, through their control of the educational system, and by doing everything they can to suppress the love of reading, they even managed to diminish our vocabulary—and thus our capacity to detect nuances of speech and thought.

Consider Thomas Paine’s 1776 pamphlet, Common Sense.  According to Wikipedia, “in relation to the population of the Colonies at that time, it had the largest sale and circulation of any book in American history.”  Could 1% of today’s Americans understand and be moved by such a pamphlet?  In just 236 years, then, there occurred a remarkable decline in the intellectual and spiritual caliber of the American people.

In short, we are not as rational, altruistic, and compassionate as we should be.  On top of that, the bankers have deliberately diminished our positive qualities and amplified our failings, thus putting another nail in the coffin of our electoral process.

Recommended Starting References:

Human Failings:  1. Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority.  2. Nissani, Moti.  Conceptual Conservatism: An Understated Variable in Human Affairs? Social Science Journal, vol. 31, pp. 307-318.

Human Strengths (under natural conditions, human beings prefer cooperation, freedom, and rough equality of material possessions):  1. Stefansson, Vilhjalmur.  Lessons In Living From The Stone Age.  In A Treasury of Science, 1943, p. 502.  2. Mann, Charles C. 2005. The Founding Sachems.  3. Harris, Marvin.  Life Without Chiefs.

4. Cloak and Dagger

David Rockefeller

Occasionally, in ancient Rome or Greece, or 21^st century UK or USA, a champion of the people poses a threat to the Machiavellian system itself.  In such cases, overwhelming evidence suggests, the top oligarchs resort to character—or literal—assassinations.  They routinely malign, incarcerate, poison, or blow the brains out of anyone, anywhere on earth, who threatens their control—whistle blowers, congressmen, judges, U.S. presidents, DC madams who know too much, environmental activists, businessmen who dare tell the American people the truth about the Mexican Gulf disaster, sport celebrities naïve and idealistic enough to join the neo-colonial armies yet smart enough to read the dissident literature, journalists who uncover the bankers’ collusion in the “war” on drugs, American peace activists, singers/songwriters with a huge fan base who figure out how the system works—and dare share this information with the public, movie directors who had come to know a member of the Rockefeller family a bit too well—and who are bold enough to tell the world what they have learned, British princesses who speak up against landmines, union leaders, the bankers’ own head of the International Mafia Federation, countless foreign heads of state who would not betray their countrymen.

US Senator Frank Church (left) displays a Central Institute of Assassinations (CIA) poison dart gun that, depending on the poison used, causes an immediate heart attack or belated cancer, 1975. According to Congressional testimony, the gun fires a frozen liquid poison-tipped dart, the width of a human hair and a quarter of an inch long. The dart can penetrate clothing and leaves a barely-visible pin-sized tiny red mark where it enters the victim’s body. In the heart attack version, once in the body, the poison melts and is absorbed into the bloodstream and causes a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that a routine autopsy is likely to trace the heart attack to natural causes. Church probably paid for his courage–and for his progressive record–with his life. By 1984, at the early of 59, he died of . . . cancer.

Once upon a time, oligarchs kept such calumnies and strangulations below the surface, following their masters Niccolò Machiavelli’s and Amschel Rothschild’s sage advice.  But now, as befits the emerging in-your-face style of oligarchy, some of these atrocities are carried out in the open.

There is a common misconception in progressive circles that America had once been the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that its decline only commenced with President Reagan.  In reality, what is happening in 2012 is merely a culmination of a centuries-long gradual march towards fascism.  I have provided numerous examples of thishere, so, for now, let me give a couple of quotations from the past (Upton Sinclair’s self-published The Brass Check, 1919):

“There was a certain labor leader in America, who was winning a great strike.  It was sought to bribe him in vain, and filially a woman was sent after him, a woman experienced  in seduction, and she lured this man into a hotel room, and at  one o’clock in the morning the door was broken down, and the  labor leader was confronted with a newspaper story, ready to  be put on the press in a few minutes.  This man had a wife and children, and had to choose between them and the strike; he called off the strike, and the union went to pieces.  This anecdote was told to me, not by a Socialist, not by a labor agitator, but by a well-known United States official, a prominent Catholic.”

“I cite this to show the lengths to which Big Business will go in order to have its way.  In San Francisco they raised a million dollar fund, and with the help of their newspapers set to work deliberately to railroad five perfectly innocent labor men to the gallows.  In Lawrence, Massachusetts, the great Woolen Trust planted dynamite in the homes of strikebreakers, and with the help of their newspapers sought to fasten this crime upon the union; only by an accident were these conspirators exposed, and all but the rich one brought to justice.  Do you think that ‘interests’ which would undertake such elaborate plots would stop at inventing and circulating scandal about their enemies?

“Most certainly they did this in Denver.  I was assured by Judge Lindsey, and by James Randolph Walker, at that time chairman of Denver’s reform organization, that the corporations of that city had a regular bureau for such work.  The head of it was a woman doctor, provided with a large subsidy, numerous agents, and a regular card catalogue of her victims.  When someone was to be ruined, she would invent a story which fitted as far as possible with the victim’s character and habits; and then some scheme would be devised to enable the newspapers to print the story without danger of libel suits.

“In extreme cases they will go as far as they did with Judge Lindsey—hiring perjured affidavits, and getting up a fake reform organization to give them authority.  Lindsey, you understand, has made his life-work the founding of a children’s court, which shall work by love and not by terror.  Love of children—ah, yes, all scandal-bureaus know what that means!  So they had a collection of affidavits accusing Lindsey of sodomy. They brought the charges while he was in the East.  A reporter went to the Denver hotel where his young bride was staying, and when she refused to see the reporter, or to hear the charges against her husband, the reporter stood in the hallway and shouted the charges to her through the transom, and, then went away and wrote up an interview!”

Recommended Starting References:  1. Pepper, William, F. 2008. An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King. 2. Caldwell, Taylor, 1972. Captains And The Kings (fiction).

Self-guided internet exercise:  What’s common to all-but-one dead-in-office American presidents?

 5. Rigged Elections

Joseph Stalin reportedly said: “It is enough that the people know there was an election.  The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”  Now that the bankers everywhere in the Western World are ingeniously re-introducing their version of Stalinism, following the same script in each and every country (just to dispel any doubt about this being a coordinated attack), the Trojan Horse in modern Western elections is the counters themselves.  Such outrageous rigging provides the bankers another safety valve, and again makes a mockery of those who believe in electoral politics.

Recommended Starting Reference: Palast, Greg. Election Rigged for Bush.

6. Broken Promises

There is a vast gap between what a politician or a party promise before the elections and what they deliver after the elections.  Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, for instance, promised peace but, once elected, served the bankers and, through guile, false-flag operations, and propaganda, led their country to catastrophic wars.  Politicians lie and get away with it, again making a mockery of the people’s will and of ballot-box reformers.

Woodrow Wilson’s betrayal was, perhaps, the most disastrous of them all.  He not only dragged the American people to war–against their will and on behalf of the bankers–but also broke his campaign promises not to sell his country to the bankers:

“During the Democratic Presidential campaign, Wilson and the rulers of the Democratic Party pretended to oppose the Aldrich bill.  As representative, Louis T. McFadden, explained twenty years later, when he was Chairman Of The House Banking And Currency Committee (and before the bankers silenced him forever),

‘The Aldrich Bill was condemned in the platform . . . when Woodrow Wilson was nominated . . . the men who ruled the Democratic Party promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reins of government.

‘Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the ‘King’s Bank,’ to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave.’”

We may note in passing that, to his credit, Wilson would later rue his betrayal:

“I’m a most unhappy man.  I have ruined my country; a great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.  We’re no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

One additional supporting example: Obama’s promise to end the neo-colonization of Iraq.  In another example,John Perkins documents the assassination threats, blackmail, and bribes used to turn decent elected officials into renegades.

7. Co-Option

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it.”–Lenin

The men in the shadows often support phony dissident organizations, e.g., the so-called “Tea Party” in the USA.  Or, with their limitless supply of money, they might infiltrate and achieve partial control of a formerly genuine reform organization, e.g., the Sierra Club.  They are thus able to control their own opposition.  Also, an individual who discovers for the first time the sorrows of the biosphere might join, say, the Wilderness Society, and might never realize that this suit-and-tie organization had sold out decades ago.  If she uncovers the deception, she might give up in disgust, mistakenly believing that it is just “human nature” to deceive, look out for number one, and ignore long-term perils.  And even if she manages to find her way to a grass-roots environmental organization, she might have only few years left to put her wisdom to good use.

This applies, in particular, to some “alternative” media.  Many of these accept commercials and thus are, to a certain extent, at someone else’s beck and call.  Other media have been created, funded, and sustained in order to throw confusion into the dissident camp.  They magnify certain issues (which pose no threat to the bankers), thus deflecting attention from more pressing issues (e.g., Who is behind the ongoing destruction of the middle class, the ongoing Syrian and Palestinian genocides, the USS Liberty Massacre and cover-up, Pearl Harbor, USS Maine?  How in heaven’s name did the Rockefellers and Rothschilds manage to exclude themselves from the list of the richest people in the world?  What is money?  Is the Rothschild/Rockefeller Cartel doing God’s work, as it claims, or Satan’s?  Did this cartel accumulate its wealth and power honorably, or by sleight of hand?  Who really owns British Petroleum, Monsanto, and just about any giant western corporation?).

These phony media and websites often accept the absurd contention that our rulers never ever engage in conspiracies (relying on that standard, absurd dismissal: “He is just a conspiracy theorist”).  For them, there is no point in investigating 9/11, for the simple reason that our rulers never plot in secret!  Well, yes, the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Romans might have, but our lily-white bankers conspiring?  Are you out of your mind?  Such sites often refer to bankers’ propaganda organs (e.g., CNN, New York Times) and to government sources as as legitimate interpreters of reality.  And again, seekers of truth must laboriously sift through their contrivances before beginning to see the world as it is.

I’m writing these words, scarcely believing them myself.  My heart tells me that this is preposterous, that there cannot possibly be people out there so vicious as to not only corrupt everything they touch, but who do everything they can to diminish goodness, health, decency, and kindness in this world.  But then my cortex takes over, providing me with multiple proofs—both personal and research-based—that these people do exist.  The existence and ascendancy of pure evil is no conjecture, but fact.  There are people in this world who have enough ill-gotten money to last them one thousand and one reincarnations of obscene physical comfort, but yet give nothing, absolutely nothing, to help the thousands of children who will go blind this year because they can’t afford $1 worth of Vitamin A.  As if this is not enough, these villains steal from these children the few centavos they do have, and torture or kill them outright if they refuse to surrender these centavos.  A key step in planetary recovery is acknowledging the existence of evil, its pervasiveness, and its capacity to control human destinies.

Mike Krieger:

“We must admit to ourselves that there are truly evil geniuses out there, and in most cases these characters have taken control of the power structure (corporations, politics and factions of the military in most of the nations we reside in).”

Recommended Starting Reference: Helvarg, David.  2004.  The War Against the Greens.

To sum up.  Electoral participation, in any way, shape, or form is counter-productive because it involves opportunity costs.  As long as we accept the bankers’ myth that the system can be changed peacefully from within, the bankers and the system are safe.  Some of our best people take part in this charade either as candidates or supporters, deluding themselves that anything at all can come from their electoral toil.  Imagine all that energy and good will channeled into a strategy that could possibly work!

Electoral politics cannot work for many reasons.  To begin with, how can we tell whether our champion is indeed our champion?  How do we know that she would prefer sure death by saying no to the bankers to joining the fairly exclusive multi-millionaire club by saying yes?  What guarantees do the people have that she will not break every single promise?

Moreover, the vast majority of gullible voters would believe that she is their enemy and that the bankers’ and weaponeers’ marionette is their friend.  She cannot effect change because bankers can steal and print as much money as they want, which they can give to her opponents.  In the very unlikely event that she survives all this and becomes a threat to the bankers, they will crucify her in their media, threaten her, offer her bribes, slander her, arrest her on false charges and keep her naked and humiliated, without trial, in solitary confinement, in a freezing-cold, filthy, noisy cubicle.  In the still more unlikely event that she actually receives a majority of the votes, they will doctor the results.  If she miraculously manages to overcome all this, and if nothing else works, she will be impeached on false grounds, suicided, incinerated in the skies or roadways, or poisoned.

She will waste time and money, and never change anything, regardless of her sincerity.  Since the American people are too drugged and televised, they will not be outraged by yet one more assassination, and will accept the bankers’ version of events.  In cases that cannot be readily forgotten, the bankers will establish a commission, appoint its members—and then proceed to ignore post-mortem reports of even these carefully-screened commissioners that the investigation was a cover-up, a hoax.  The people would even permit these bankers to derisively reproduce the image of the people’s murdered champion on their fiat money.

In more general terms, putting our hopes for freedom and for a better world in the process of electoral politics is fundamentally ill-advised, if not immoral.  We must grow up, as the Ancient Athenians did, or as the American revolutionaries did, and provide for our own freedom and security.  Our system is irreparably broken and must be overthrown, one way or the other.  The contemporary ballot box is a bewitching siren, a mirage, a shibboleth, a bankers’ trap.

 The Different Branches of the Humanitarian Camp Must Unite

“There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom.  Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?  We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.  If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”–The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955

History provides us with yet another crossroads for improving our reform strategies:  Recognizing our common humanity and goals and forming a universal, humanitarian, reform movement.

What, really, are the things that decent, politically literate, human beings care most about?  The answer, I suggest, must comprise at least these four elements:

 Freedom

“That so many of the well-fed young television-watchers in the world’s most powerful democracy should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self-government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising.  ‘Free as a bird,’ we say, and envy the winged creatures for their power of unrestrictedmovement in all the three dimensions.  But, alas, we forget the dodo.  Any bird that has learned how to grub up a good living without being compelled to use its wings will soon renounce the privilege of flight and remain forever grounded.”–Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 1958

Throughout most of their existence, human beings seemed to have lived in tribal democracies, with themselves making every major decision.  For a long time, America had been a somewhat free country, but that is no longer the case.  Here is Former President Jimmy Carter (A Cruel and Unusual Record, 6/24/2012):

“While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change . . .  In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws . . . allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications.  Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate. . . . Meanwhile, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, now houses 169 prisoners.  About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom.  American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers.  Astoundingly, these facts cannot be used as a defense by the accused, because the government claims they occurred under the cover of “national security.”  Most of the other prisoners have no prospect of ever being charged or tried either.”

If we ignore the horrors of slavery, inequality of women, and limited rights of people of foreign origins, we can probably say that a similar system existed in the democratic phases of many ancient Greek city-states.  We can mention in passing that freedom is not only a natural right, not only good for one’s soul, but that it promotes excellence in the moral, cultural, artistic, intellectual, and commercial spheres—as shown by the astounding achievements of democracies like Athens.   Genuine democracy, it so happens, is also the political system most likely to promote environmental sustainability, social justice, and peace.

 Environmental Sustainability

“At this point in history the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization.” – Erich Fromm

Environmental scientists suspect that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.”  Cancer rates have already at least doubled; obesity, autism, diabetes, and asthma are on the rise, to name just a few human-facilitated scourges.  Shouldn’t freedom include the right to have one’s fat tissues not soaked with synthetic poisons, one’s brain not loaded with heavy metals, one’s lungs not bathed in plutonium and depleted uranium?  Are the victims of environmentally-acquired autism free?  Don’t I have a right to know if the corn kernels I’ve just ingested are laced with built-in poisons?  Shouldn’t we all share the burden of pollution equally?

Many among us dismiss environmental concerns as a swindle.  The world’s population, they believe, can forever go up by 80,000,000 a year.  We can puncture as many holes in the stratosphere as we wish; we can continue the ongoing destruction of forests, topsoil, oceans, lakes, aquifers, and air; continue to produce as many new chemicals as we wish; go on tampering with the evolutionary heritage of living organisms; persist in the creation of massive amounts of imperishable radioactive wastes; continue to reduce species diversity—and yet survive unscathed.

This is not the place to refute such scientifically naïve views.  Instead, let me just say that the majority of the people who are best qualified to judge the matter—independent scientists—are extremely concerned about the very future of the biosphere.  For example, in 1992—when the situation was less desperate than it is now—some 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this “Warning to Humanity:”

“Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.  Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources.  If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.  Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.”

This is echoed in turn by more recent warnings.  According to the  U.N.’s 2011 World Economic and Social Survey, “humanity is on the verge of breaching planetary sustainability boundaries” and heading towards “a major planetary catastrophe.”

And that is exactly the threat we face now.  For those of us capable of simple extrapolation of past trends into the future, the conclusion is inescapable:  We are an almost-extinct species, give or take a couple of centuries.  We treat the earth, our only home, with reckless abandon.  We have been warned, time and again, by our best and brightest about the peril, the absurdity, for example, of relying on nuclear fission to boil water (a process which, when analyzed in all its complexity and throughout its entire period of relevance, paradoxically consumes more energy than it produces), but the psychopaths totally ignore the absurdities and warnings.  As of now, humanity has forever lost land to the 1957 Kyshtym disaster in the Urals, to the Chernobyl catastrophe in the Ukraine and Belarus, and to the Fukushima cataclysm (including, perhaps, Tokyo).  How many more such disasters before we reach the tipping point?

More worrisome is not one or another tipping points, but the multiplicity of threats, the daily arrival of new anthropogenic threats, our inability to predict the impacts of these threats on something as complex as the biosphere, and our failure, in Paul Watson’s words, to give precedence to natural laws.  We may survive a dozen threats, but we are unlikely to survive thousands, and yet our scientific and political systems excel at introducing new ones.  We shall have to be extremely fortunate, or the earth must be exceedingly resilient, to be forever lucky and reckless.  You can’t play Russian roulette forever.

It takes a science fiction writer to fully grasp the irony and hopelessness of our situation. In Karel Capek’s humorously pessimistic War with the Newts, sentient and prolific salamanders are encountered in some far-off bay.  At first their discoverers offer them knives and protection from sharks in exchange for pearls.  Gradually, however, many of the world’s nations avail themselves of these creatures for other purposes, including war.  In a few years, the salamanders run out of living space.  To accommodate their growing numbers, they flood countries, one at a time.  To do this, they need supplies from other countries and from merchants of the soon-to-be ravaged country itself.  Needless to say, the salamanders have no trouble securing everything they need.  At the end, humanity is on the verge of sinking and drowning; not so much by the newts, but by its greed, shortsightedness, and colossal stupidity.

A similar conclusion is reached in Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle:

 ”And I remembered the Fourteenth Book of Bokonon, which I had read in its entirety the night before.  The Fourteenth Book is entitled, “What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years?”

It doesn’t take long to read, The Fourteenth Book.  It consists of one word and a period.

This is it:

“Nothing.”

Social Justice

Throughout most of human history—in humanity’s hunter-gatherer phase—rough egalitarianism (as well as freedom and sustainability) probably prevailed.  Our ancestors rightly believed that no one fellow tribesman should starve in the midst of plenty, suffer cold, no sick person should be left unattended by the local shaman because she was poor, no one should be denied access to local traditions because she couldn’t afford to hire a teacher.  We look down on these “savages,” but in this we’re mistaken—we are the top practitioners of savagery the world has ever seen.  A few among us— psychopaths, sycophants, misers, swindlers, or their heirs—have untold riches, while billions of us are starving, lack access to decent housing and water, or are trampled upon and imprisoned by some feudal lords.

According to Joseph Stiglitz, once seen as the land of opportunity, the U.S. today is grappling with rising inequality and a political system that benefits the rich at the expense of others.

“The U.S. worked hard to create the American dream of opportunity.  But today, that dream is a myth . . . we are paying a high price for inequality: it contributes to social, economic and political instability.”

Is that the best we can do?  What does political freedom mean to the 18,000 children under five who will die today because of malnutrition and hunger-related diseases, while humanity produces more than enough to comfortably feed everyone?  What does it mean, freedom, to the 215 million children trapped in child labor around the world?  What does our indifference say about us?  Have they stopped assigning Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” in college, or are recent graduates too televised to get the irony?  What is the meaning of this, that we can readily create a system where every child, every adult, every old and infirm person, has all that is needed for a dignified existence, yet we pretend that the present system gives us the best of all possible worlds?

Thankfully, some of us (and not surprisingly, such people tend to die prematurely, under suspicious circumstances) ask themselves the same question.  Here is Michael Jackson:

 ”I see the kids in the streets,

With not enough to eat

Who am I to be blind,

Pretending not to see their needs?

 

A summer disregard, a broken bottle top

And a one man’s soul

They follow each other on the wind ya’ know

‘Cause they got nowhere to go

That’s why I want you to know

 

I’m starting with the man in the mirror

I’m asking him to change his ways

And no message could have been any clearer

If you want to make the world a better place

Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

 

I’ve been a victim of a selfish kind of love

It’s time that I realize

That there are some with no home, not a nickel to loan

Could it be really me, pretending that they’re not alone?”

Peace

Most people pay at least lip service to the notion that war, military or economic occupation, and violence are undesirable because they kill and maim countless human beings, degrade both perpetrator and victim, destroy the earth and its inhabitants, squander valuable resources that could help close the gap between rich and poor, and, nowadays, pose potential risks to continued human survival.  War is clearly a racket, evidently avoidable.  The Swiss and Swedes escaped it for centuries, because they have a greater measure of control of the political process than most other nations on earth.  We could avoid war too, if we wanted to.

James Miller:

“Then and now, wealthy special interests are a driving force behind American imperialism.  Lies will be spun till they are seen as facts.  When the truth comes out, the irreparable damage will already be done.  Like anything the state lays its filthy hands on, war is a racket.  The beneficiaries of the ruling class’s gleeful foray into mass murder are few in number.  The masses, still brainwashed into feverish nationalism, end up paying the costs with their pilfered income, eroded liberty, and, ultimately, their own lives.”

But that is not all.  War is intimately linked to freedom, the environment, and social justice.  Thucydides graphically described the blood-curdling cultural transformation of Athens during the Peloponnesian War.  In times of war, classical Rome turned itself from a republic into a dictatorship.  In the USA, one of our greatest champions of freedom, Thomas Jefferson, refused to be dragged to war despite numerous Rothschild Family provocations (acting through their underlings in the British Parliament), because he clearly understood the inverse relation between freedom and war.  During the Civil War, World War One and Two, freedom in the USA was cynically made subservient to security.  And once you let the tyrants and the bankers grab some of your freedoms, they never again, if they can help it, let you have these freedoms back.  Likewise, the never-endingbogus war on terror is the chief excuse for dismantling the Constitution, Bill of Rights, privacy, presumption of innocence, and the Posse Comitatus Act.  That same bogus war likewise facilitates the bankers’ plan of destroying the middle class, bringing the pleasures of hunger and scarcity to an ever-increasing number of human beings, further stretching the wealth gap between the parasitic bankers and militarists and the rest of us, and accelerating the pace of planetary rape.

There is a better way, Pete Seeger sings:

“One blue sky above us,

One ocean, lapping our shores.

One earth so green and brown,

Who could ask for more?

And because I love you

I’ll give it one more try

To show my rainbow race

It’s too soon to die.

Some folks want to be like an ostrich;

Bury their heads in the sand

Some hope for plastic dreams

To unclench all those greedy hands.

Some want to take the easy way:

Poisons, bombs! They think we need ‘em.

Don’t they know you can’t kill all the unbelievers.

There’s no shortcut to freedom

Go tell, go tell all the little children!

Go tell mothers and fathers, too:

Now’s our last chance to learn to share

What’s been given to me and you.”

 Closing Remarks

Freedom, sustainability, justice, and peace begin with us.  We must strive to open our minds to new ideas, subordinate our selfish desires to the interests of humanity and the biosphere, and try to understand the world in all its complexity and interconnectedness.

We must also strive to liberate our minds, beginning by disconnecting ourselves, as much as possible, from the bankers’ propaganda system.  We must actively fight such ingrained but palpably false notions that America is a democracy, that our economic institutions come even close to genuine capitalism, that our president is “the most powerful man in the world,” that we should write letters to “our” representatives, that the only qualification a reformer needs is an avowal of reforming sentiments, that our dear bankers never conspire against us.  We should condemn such Punch and Judy shows as contemporary elections, political debates, the mendacious 9/11 and Warren “Commissions,” or trials by judges.  We ought not to send our children to the bankers’ indoctrination centers, nor allow the bankers’ propaganda to intrude into our living rooms while masquerading as news or entertainment.  We must grasp that Hollywood is part of the bankers’ propaganda system and look for entertainment, uplifting art, or comic relief elsewhere.  We must give the slip to that artful National Propaganda Radio, and all other radio programs provided to us by our masters.  We must see how vulnerable we all are, and how any exposure to political and commercial propaganda pollutes our most cherished asset—our minds.  We ought to be doubly careful when it comes to our children.

We must carefully and open-mindedly study the political process.  Such a study will show that we ought to abandon all hopes of the system reforming itself.  Our real rulers have wrested every bastion of power within our republic, and will cling to it come hell or high water.  At this advanced stage of decay, electoral politics can accomplish less than nothing.

We must overstep the ideological boundaries that divide us.  Instead of aspiring to just one or two of the following—genuine freedom, environmental sustainability, social justice, peace—we ought to embrace them all.  We ought to do so because all four are interdependent, and because this is the right thing to do.

If a sufficient number of us grasps these urgent truths, the world may yet turn towards the morning.  The hour is late but perhaps not too late; our chances admittedly slim, but still above zero.  If, on the other hand, we let our rulers and our own delusions, close-mindedness, and ignorance partition us into countless disparate or even hostile ideological camps, if we go on diverting precious resources to the corrupt electoral masquerade, if we go on waiting for a knight in shining armor to conduct the revolution for us instead of conducting it ourselves, if we fail to establish direct democracy within our own organizations and set it up as one of the revolution’s primary goals, if we fail to subject the records of our more prominent spokespeople and strategists to dispassionate analyses, if we fail to embrace the only strategy that could possibly overthrow the bankers, then we shall have no chance at all.

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=268535