What is “unfocused and leaderless?”

Occupy Wall Street has been condemned as “unfocused and leaderless,” but a lot of things could be considered that way.

For example, has America really been “liberating” the Middle East? Look at Iraq. First of all, the country was run by a dictator  America previously supported, and Iraq was worsened by the US-backed  Iran-Iraq War, by all the subsequent wars, and by UN sanctions which virtually crippled the country.  The elections only occurred because thousands of Iraqis opposed the  occupation government which had, among other things, disbanded the Iraqi army (thus hurting the economy even more) and banned Iraqi  newspapers. Obama is not the antidote some were hoping for, either. Regarding foreign policy, Obama doesn’t propose too many actual reforms. Maybe the newspapers tell a different story, but anything  even marginally different is usually considered extremely leftist by the right wing press.   Israel still has massive support by the United States, despite its clear crimes. Etc. etc. etc.  

Countless sums of taxpayer dollars wasted over a span of 60 years (JFK was partly responsible for Saddam Hussein’s getting into power).

 

 

 

 

 

Stand with reason, not nationalism!

Modern life poses a lot of unconventional questions, which we can address or choose to ignore.
One of them:  Are Christian Zionist extremists as potentially dangerous as, say, Muslim extremists?
According to Daniel Levitas, “More than a century after William Hechler paid his first
 visit to Theodor Herzl in Vienna, Christian Zionists are still
 zealous supporters of Israel.
The stakes of this evangelical-Jewish alliance are high, as
 Christians who want to hasten the Apocalypse have mobilized to
support policies that are likely to exacerbate the Israeli-Palestinian
 conflict to the point of possibly bringing Jews and Arabs
closer to a smaller-scale version of Armageddon.
 And while the American Jewish establishment has not wavered in
opposing the religious right on domestic issues, its embrace of
Christian Zionists, however reluctant, may strengthen the hand of conservatives
 in the next election and beyond.
But regardless of whether or not more Jews can be
 persuaded to vote for the GOP, one thing is certain:
 Christian conservatives certainly will be better prepared to deflect charges
 of antisemitism with Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu,
 and Ehud Olmert standing at their side.” (1)

When addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems relevant to keep that question in mind.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have magic solutions.
It’s even safe to say that, on the present course,
nothing will likely be solved.
Any military option could backfire, and probably will.
 Nor can the problems be “invested” away, or solved by
 attorneys. 
But Israeli Prime Minister Rabin inadvertently stumbled upon a problem of logic for
 Israel.
In 1993 he mentioned how, “These groups”  — meaning Palestinian extremist
organizations — “are ideologically opposed to the mere existence of the
State of Israel, let alone to peace with it.” (2)

The conundrum is simple:  Any sensible person could oppose “the
mere existence” of the state of Israel, or any other
 state.
One could have never set foot in the state of
 Israel and still oppose it, based on general principle.
For example, King Hussein exercised Rabin-like logic in 1965, claiming that
 ”Palestine has become Jordan, and Jordan Palestine,” and that “organizations
 which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors.” (3)
The logic is virtually identical, at leats to an unbiased observer.

What were both King Hussein and Rabin trying to say? 
The fundamental impression is that certain distinctions and criticisms are
 forms of treason, or heresy, while other distinctions and criticisms must stand,
and be protected.  
Of course, it’s hard to engage in discussion with people who assume this.
For example, if criticizing Israel means supporting Palestinian extremists, or those
 who bombed the World Trade Center, what can one say? 

The US has its own logic for being involved in this ideology.
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt elaborated on how,
 ”especially after 9/11, U.S. support for Israel has been justified
 by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist
 groups originating in the Arab or Muslim world, and by
 a set of ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and
 seek WMD.
This rationale implies that Washington should give Israel a free
 hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press Israel
 to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or
 dead.” (4)

Of course, by totalitarian logic, all Palestinians can be punished
for being potential terrorists.
On the other hand, some devout Muslims truly can become a dangerous, zealous
group — even outside of their particular “regimes.”
 A dramatic example is when one tried to murder a
Danish cartoonist for his role in creating “12 drawings of
 the Prophet Muhammad which angered Muslims around the world.”
Also, “Three Danish embassies were attacked and at least 50
 people were killed in rioting in 2006 in the Middle
 East, Africa and Asia.
Several young Muslims have since been convicted in Denmark of
planning bomb attacks, partly in protest at the cartoons.”(5)

It’s clear that, to some, any perceived “holy” end justifies any
 means.  The danger is obvious. 
If we were to all live by such standards, the world would quickly be
enslaved by competing camos, and it would be a particularly unworkable
 form of slavery.
The solution, as best I can tell is this: 
  All of these problems come from the past, and discussions
 dead-end fairly quickly if we cling to these ancient beliefs.
We need to stop believing in so much, and instead look
 to what is really there. 
We need less faith.  We need to see. 
 When you need to “see” something to believe it, it is
actually a lack of faith, a lack of belief.
 It is the pursuit of evidence and reason.     
 
Only this pursuit can prevent the deaths of Jews and
 Israelis, as well as the terror campaigns by Israel and
the United States.
The problem here is one of perception, of ideology.
At this point, all sides need to stop blaming their
 victims.
This includes any Americans who blame Iraq for the Iraq
 War.
  To some Americans, it’s easy to forget it was the
United States that launched the Iraq invasion, not Saddam.
  However, ideological loyalty deflects responsibility for America’s actions.
In stark contrast to the conventional cowardice, Kathryn Casa wrote the
follwing about the ongoing attacks:  “In the Islamic world,
 much of which suffers from poverty and animosity institutionalized by
 years of lopsided U.S. foreign policy, this illogical war will
 burn hatred and a thirst for revenge into generations of
 Muslims.
And because Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the
United States, Americans will re-learn and re-live still
more bigotry, prejudice and fear.” (6)

Of course, this doesn’t mean all who convert to
Islam are guaranteed to hate or attack the United States.
But the prospect is there, and growing.
In turn, America’s own bigotry, prejudices and fears may increase,
especially among religious fanatics.
Some doubt the extent and tenacity of American fundamentalist Christianity.
  But consider, for example, the case of Mikey Weinstein, a
Jewish Republican attorney, and a 1977 Honor Graduate of the Air Force
 Academy and creator of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
 He has been “locked in mortal combat with Fundamentalist Christians,”
claiming America “is a two-inch Tiger Woods putt from
being changed to the United Fundamentalist States of America.”
Weinstein alleges that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cadets
 and midshipmen at the Air Force and Naval academies at
home, are pressured to convert to evangelical Christianity by those
with “a virulent desire to subordinate the Constitution …
to…the weaponized gospel of Jesus Christ.”(7)
 
As Stephen Rose put it:  “The United States of America
 cannot hope any longer to successfully deal with the rest
of the world, politically, economically or socially, as long as
 it continues to be a nation divided by its own
 denial, fears and prejudices.” (8)

The Iraq war isn’t only the fault of Bush and
 his advisers, but the fault of our nations, our societies.
We make the world crazy.
There are so many opportunistic, paranoid political movements out there, ever ready to
 propagandize against another “race” while propping up their own.
Even stupid Nazism could have a big comeback.
It still has proponents.   
Consider the following quote, sometimes used on the internet by anti-Jewish groups:
“The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish
 brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is
 to create a new order in the world.
 What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia,
 thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and
by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental
 an physical forces, become a reality all over the world.
(The American Hebrew, September 10, 1920).”
Surprisingly, the original source apparently exists.
However, according to Jacob Minsky, “this is not a quote at all, but at the most an
 extremely tendentious paraphrase, and the second sentence is a complete invention.
Second, this particular issue – actually, it is a color supplement to the magazine – is
 devoted to the topic of ‘non-Jewish opinions about Jews.’ To that end, it consists of
 articles by various non-Jewish guest commentators; e.g. it has an article by Georges
 Clemenceau. The opinions in the quote above are contained (but not in such extreme form, or
 in those words) in an article by one Tsvetan Tonjoroff, of whom I have never heard (and,
 more tellingly, neither have any biographical references that I’ve been able to search).
 So I really can’t say why he was invited to submit an article.
There is not the slightest indication that his opinion is shared by the staff of American
Hebrew, any Jews, or what have you. In fact, this issue – and many of the previous ones -
 contain articles that debunk the usual antisemitic lie that Bolshevism is Jewish, discuss
 the serious situation of Jews in early Soviet Russia, quote from respected sources (e.g.
 General Kolchak, if I recall), and so on.” (9)

But paranoid hatred is difficult to combat, given its very nature.  
Because social organization present such vast, humanity-wide issues, workable solutions cannot be
 nationalistic or racist.
People are what they are.
If a view or project is not acceptable, we generally shouldn’t
 have to participate in their vision.
If something happens that’s totally awful, then people may have
 to defend themselves against it by the means deemed necessary.
 It’s not all that complicated, once the superstitions and blind
 obediences to authority are removed.
Where people are free to do things for their own
 sake, based on logic and not on lies, they are
less like machines and more apt to create an intelligent
 society.
 There are tendencies in this direction right now, even though
corrupt politicians, corporate monopolists and religious loons still have significant
 sway over world affairs.
Many authoritarians doubt you have an ounce of original thinking in your body.
They count on it.  
Brainwashing is very real, though today it’s commonly called “public relations.”
Don’t believe me? 
Consider the following report by Newsweek online (yes, none other than Newsweek):
“In 2003, [then-US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld issued a secret Information
 Operations Roadmap setting out a plan for public affairs and psychological operations to
 work together.
It noted that with a global media, the military should
 expect and accept that psychological operations will reach the U.S.
public.
‘I can tell you there wouldn’t be a single American
 disappointed with anything that we’ve done that might be out
 there, that they don’t know about,’ says Col. Curtis Boyd,
commander of the 4th PSYOP Group, the largest unit of
its kind.
‘Frankly, they probably wouldn’t care because maybe they are safer
 as a result of it.’
In January 2008, a report by the Defense Science Board
recommended resurrecting the Office of Strategic Influence as the Office
of Strategic Communications.
But Congress refused to fund the program.”(10)

May the program go unfunded, and may we see beyond the program altogether.

SOURCES: 
    1.  Daniel Levitas, “A MARRIAGE MADE FOR HEAVEN,” Reform Judaism Magazine,
SUMMER 2003 Vol. 31, No. 4:
http://reformjudaismmag.net/03summer/focus.shtml

2.  Address by Prime Minister Rabin to the General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations, Montreal, 18 November 1993:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1992-1994/138%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Rabin%20to%20the%20General)

3.  Quoted at:  http://www.danielpipes.org/article/298

4.  John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” Antiwar.com, August 22, 2006:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mearwalt.php?articleid=9573

5.  “Major Danish newspapers republish Muhammad cartoon,”:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3506256,00.html

6.  “Just Say No,” Kathryn Casa The Brattleboro Reformer, Sept. 23, 2002, or “Invasion of Iraq,” Gary Girdhari:  http://www.guyanajournal.com/iraq.html

7.  “War against soldiers of Christ,” John Colson, The Aspen Times,  March 23, 2008

8.  “Wow!!! There’s Racism in America!?!,”  Stephen Rose, March 28, 2008:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13746

9.  “Response to ’1000 Quotes by and about Jews,’” David S. Maddison:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/1000quote.html

10.  “AP Impact: Pentagon ups public relations spending,” Chris
Tomlinson, Associated Press Writer:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183372/output/print

On Ann Coulter

In American political culture, a lot of things actually make sense.
For example, the call to limit salaries at banks taking taxpayer bailouts.
In fact, one could argue that perhaps — just perhaps — some salaries should have been removed.
Then there are things, and even people, which make little to no sense.
An example of this would be Ann Coulter.
Among other nonsensical things, she’s made this statement regarding the Middle East:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert
 them to Christianity.”
Facsinatingly, some have defended this view.
In a debate site online, someone told me that
“Coulter’s point is that Iran would be a better place
 with a different government and a different religion…Christianity for one.”
Of course, saying a thing shouldn’t exist and calling for violence against
 it can be entirely separate things.
It’s one thing to say “the cat shouldn’t be in
 the house,” and another to say “let’s torture and kill
the cat, then burn it in a backyard bonfire.”

In actuality, Ann Coulter’s view essentially dehumanizes her targets — they
 are nothing but impediments to her self-righteous goal of a global Christian theocracy.
It’s like my telling her that she isn’t human; that
she is merely a thing to be removed from human society.

 
We’re all guilty of this attitude to an extent, but
it’s up to us to mediate that extent.
But also, let’s be honest — we don’t all like each other.
I really wouldn’t be shattered to learn that Ann Coulter died.
There, I said it.
After hearing that, I would still put on my shoes, check the mail and go about the rest of my day.
But, at the end of the day, I’d settle back into an easy chair, knowing it wasn’t me who
who killed her or anyone else.
I’m not calling for the extermination of nonbelievers, nor am I a well-paid public figure.
I can’t say this for Republican ideologues who clearly want to kill people in the Middle East.

re: FOX News

There’s lots of misinformation around,
supposedly packaged for families, shouted on the airwaves.
However, there was no meaningful defense of our vaunted
 Constitution during the Bush years.
In other words, they call it an “idiot box” for a reason.

Why Uncle Sam is Losing in Afghanistan

I’ll keep it short and sweet:
Al-Qaeda aren’t “based out of” any one state.
That’s largely why, after Uncle Sam bashes in a few
heads, more pop up elsewhere.
 It’s a troubling, seemingly eternal game of whack-a-mole.
And, by bombing the landscape and sometimes killing civilians,
 we’re pissing people off and creating more enemies.
 Then, of course, there are the mountains….

Liberty, The Money System And Reality (in two parts)

Liberty, The Money System And Reality  (in two parts)     

      By Wade Wainio

 ”Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it all back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.”        -Lord Stamp, a Director of the Bank of England, in a speech in 1940

(AUTHOR’S NOTE: There are various definitions for money, but when I say “money” throughout, I mean the standard definition “liquid currency” of coins, cash and credit.  There will be moments when I will appear to veer away from money, but this is becaus eit is such a vast topic, encapsulating so many other topics.  Also, this text is intended to focus more on recent events, for purposes of contemporary applications of logic.  This is not an in-depth historiography, but a recent-day polemic.)

 
 PART ONE:  An Explanation:  Why Anarchism?  Why Challenge Money?  The Issue of Illusion           

 Anarchism is thoroughly anti-authoritarian; meaning no individual or small group of people should dominate in making decisions affecting many. Precisely because of this, it is a philosophy constantly concerned with actions and process.  It intends to cut out the proverbial middle man, focusing on what is absolutely necessary in order to function.  For example, food growth does not require us to plant coins in the earth, nor do trees require coins to exist.  If we know anything about biology and ecology we don’t bother feeding coins to soil even once, let alone give it another try. This truism reminds us of the basic nature of life.  Like plant life, human actions do not absolutely require coins, dollars or credits to occur. Actions often result from conscious human decision, guided by some need or perception.  In the spirit of critical thinking, this text  is intended to challenge widespread perceptions.  I personally believe attempts to create a dream world where money is an absolute requirement are at our peril, as all illusion-based changes pose dangers to us. Even more radically, I suggest we should consider not using money at all. I intend to explain my views in depth, hoping they will be seriously considered.   I emphasize that in writing this, or any other critique; I do not claim to be perfect.  This  is not intended as an absolute stance against all aspects of materialism, for example, nor do I intend to show how I’m “better” than everyone else. In fact, I could be the worst kind of hypocrite imaginable, as some might allege, but the trends I note could be examined nonetheless.  That aside, I have a certain degree of faith that some will understand what I mean, and why I mean it.   

 Money itself has mostly illusory properties. Credit even comes from the Latin word credere, which means “to believe.” Indeed, money cannot do anything by itself and, as far as practicality is concerned, has no sentience.  Its illusory nature should be considered an instant weakness, as illusions can disturb the normal flow of execution of actions and ideas, distorting our pictures of reality, our experiences and our wills. This point is debatable, but it seems modern people should see illusions as a stone’s throw away from paranoid fantasies, which themselves can lead to absurd personal problems and actions.  Therefore, if we examine a human act and find illusory belief as its foundation, we should ask ourselves what reasons exist for this belief, especially if the act in question is important. This simple idea could be understood by anyone, “anarchist” or otherwise. It is simply to question. We can apply this principle of examination very generally, for any institution will necessarily have an abstract, illusory character. Because of their illusory nature, organizations literally cannot be permanent, for their bonds are based in belief, made real only by perception, temporary rewards and/or imposed punishments. In the pages that follow, I will also argue that the money system is driven heavily by punishment.  As we all know, punishment entails imposing something unpleasant on a subject when unwanted behavior (disobedience) has been displayed. Perceptions and institutions change or die, but punishments make them live longer, due to the lasting sting.  Rewards, or the promise of rewards, also instill obedience, but rewards virtually never stand alone (more on that will come later).          

  Any true skeptic may recognize money dogma, or capitalist dogma.  Like with a holy religion, we are supposed to recognize the money system almost as a reward in itself, even when its agents and ideals appear to punish. For a contemporary and controversial example of this dogma in action, we can look at the recent clashes between police and the Ungdomshuset “Youth House” movement in Copenhagen, Denmark. The media portrayed the basic situation adequately:  “Two courts ordered [Ungdomshuset] squatters to leave the house [they had used for 24 years] and hand it over to a Christian congregation.  The squatters refused to leave, saying the city had no right to sell the four-story building while it was still in use.” In broader terms, the youths refused to follow capitalist dogma and decided to keep a building as a free cultural center without municipal sanction.  In response to their refusal, police engaged them with “non-deadly weapons” to evict them.  

Though the Copenhagen youth movement was initially quite successful in fending off such attacks (they even overran police), they were eventually evicted after a helicopter landed on their roof and riot police accumulated around the building.  However, prior to the eviction and the youth rioting that followed, police had been filmed beating unarmed, mostly peaceful protesters.  At least in one instance caught on film, a police van charged at and hit someone.  So why did rioting occur?  Obviously, when a community of people gets attacked and evicted, it’s predictable some may react violently in response — sometimes even unreasonably violent.  Quite plainly, capitalist and municipal dogma overlooked the risks involved with attacking people and removing them from a place they loved.  In addition to the eviction, the Danish police raided various homes trying to find people suspected of being allied with Ungdomshuset.  Some simply applaud the police, feeling virtually any police action is correct.  Police do, after all, wear uniforms that are supposed to instantly win respect.  However, the municipality in Denmark had a somewhat pyrrhic victory. Its image was smeared for some, and all just to defeat Denmark’s radical youths who were “criminally” hanging around in a building for 24 years (I emphasize it was only recently that the government declared it criminal).   Money simply permeates this issue.  One Youth House spokesman said “We are tired of being seen as a creditcard!”  On the other side, Anders Fredrik Mihle of the governing Liberal Party’s youth wing said, as if in direct reply: “The spoiled kids in the Youth House woke up to reality in Danish society where you have a job and pay rent.”  But the youths were living in reality, only not a permissible one.  To maintain the permissible version, the brutality of the eviction was topped with another inanity:  The Danish municipality destroyed the building anyway.  The municipality could have probably given the Christian congregation some other building, but it wanted to punish the youths for being different and somewhat independent-spirited.  In response to the events, opinion columnist Carla Beckman noted:  “The youth have yet another reason to distrust government and society. Can we really fault them on their views?”  Even the more “mainstream” media couldn’t simply peg the anarchists as people rioting for no reason.

 Most coverage didn’t hide how the rioting occurred because of the eviction, which likely led some to investigate the police brutality involved in the process.  It may have even lead some people to sympathize with basic principles of anarchism, including the drastic possibility of subverting the money system.   In any case, we can predict future clashes between youths who want to engage in free cultural activities and the stodgy adult world wanting to tear their independent creativity and dignity away.

Wherever “mature” adults can do this, they will undoubtedly divvy out any remaining culture as a feeble reward at a market price.  Abbie Hoffman once said “the first duty of the revolutionary is to get away with it,” and for a while the Youth House movement did just that, at least on a micro-scale.  However, the intent of the police to punish them (with clubs, pepper spray, water cannons, police vans, etc) was unmistakably clear, with the reason for their coercion being the abstract social reward of order. Order seems to often mean, “if it doesn’t have a dollar sign on it, it’s not allowed.”  (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070116120756794)(http://www.ocolly.com/read_story.php?a_id=32205)          

 There are similar struggles worldwide, pitting those who would scrap status quo values against those who feed the illusions, however consciously.  At either extreme of the spectrum and at all points in between, most of the challenges involve the money system, or some aspect of it, for it’s simply entrenched in the current state of affairs.  In order for the money system to be so dominant, it seems the government is required to take significant control of the economy, which it regularly does (honestly, this should be an entry level observation).  I, along with virtually all other anarchists, don’t think a truly free market has ever existed.  Instead, we’ve had state industrial policy.  This unifying policy, enacted by many institutions, determines that money must overwhelmingly guide decisions and actions, and punishments are imposed if our wishes are not their commands.

 If one defies an order given by an economic authority, or especially if one quits from the overall economic framework, he/she will essentially be alienated or even evicted from society.  Especially under such cruel conditions, the framework can function like a radical religious movement, always escalating and expanding, trying to reach a genuine peak, a zenith of influence and control (what could be called Pure Management).  Some anti-religious capitalists may say, “But capitalism is nothing like religion!  People only believe in religion because institutions and parents teach them religious doctrine!  Money is real and absolutely necessary!”  However, religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve faith in a spiritual nature and study of inherited ancestral traditions.  Is the money system completely outside such a definition?  The codified beliefs, faith in “growth” and rituals of capitalism are plain to see, and the “spiritual nature” is ultimately that of elevating capitalist institutions and “the self” to God-like status, ultimately placing profits, selfishness and institutions ahead of bare human needs.  People of faith often go to church, or an association of people who share a particular belief system.  Not all among the capitalist faith attend business congregations, watch stock market reports and buy “get rich quick” books.  However, more importantly, many do not seriously question money, jst as many do not question their God. Money, like God, only becomes absolutely real to true believers, while the rest must deal with the consequences of such beliefs, especially if they hesitate to join the flock.       

Money ideals have dominated for much longer than a few centuries.  In fact, just by their massive, virtually all-encompassing influence, it’s safe to assume they’ve been largely imposed on entire generations before they could disagree.  Certainly, most are pacified toward money at a young, impressionable age.  Furthermore, the money system is artificially created, obviously reduces individuality and, despite claims to the contrary, has never been inherent (a baby grasps for its mother, not a dollar bill, for example).  Unsurprisingly, some eargue that not believing or following the rules of capitalist theory (making profit, requiring funding for activities, etc) is against nature, which essentially means it’s against the wishes of the universe.  But such stark belief is only thinly based on the hypothetical.  It reads more like dogma, and when such logic is put into practice it becomes just that.  I’ve had personal debates over money where its strong adherents didn’t elaborate and defend their positions, instead assuming they must be absolutely correct.  Such people feel that competitive attitudes, profit and private ownership (as opposed to worker and general ownership) of the means of production simply must be the gateways through which things are adequately done.  Some even suggest that without money nobody could get anything meaningful done.  This is as close as one can get to pure dogma, and I’ve honestly seen this view expressed often.  The danger of such belief, aside from its cowardice, is that it is actually intended as a self-fulfilling prophesy (the anti-social results of which must inevitably be covered up or excused).  Such people also suggest that, because capitalist institutions are so common and so powerful (like those of the three big religions), we should not challenge them.  It’s a “waste of time,” they may say.  However, isn’t it practical to go out of our way to question the legitimacy of the more common ideas and actions around us?  After all, what we commonly experience affects more of us more often.  And, indeed, some people actually do this.  Though the capitalist religion flourishes, others suggest the human universe may rearrange itself even in ways beyond the confines of capitalism.  These others (obviously including myself), who come from different backgrounds and who emphasize the physical parameters of our social universe aside from ideology, must be crackpots or worse, right?  Wrong.  In fact, as I hopefully will show, it is the status quo that is crazy.
———————————————————
Part two
The Britney Spears Philosophy/Propaganda/ Thinking Like Money          
  On September 20, 2003, a singing Disney toy called Britney Spears offered this tidbit of wisdom:  “Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.”  Should we not question the President, simply because his position of authority exists?  Perhaps, if we want to revert to an era of rule by priests and kings.  However, if we’re smart, we’ll realize a leader’s policies are not justified simply because “The people have spoken, end of discussion.”  The discussion needn’t end there, nor should we fail to make parallels between such thinking about the President and that of our politico-economic system as a whole.Theodore Roosevelt himself once said, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”  I’m not patriotic, but the basic argument makes sense, and can still be applied broadly to politics, with economics being quite political in nature.  Unfortunately, the Britney Spears approach to politics is all too common, whether we like it or not.

             Essentially, humans are caught between different realms.  Call these realms what you like:  Public and private, the leaders and followers, the rulers and the dominated, the old and the new, the nakedly real and the imagination-based.  Whatever the name, most can and will assimilate to mainstream currents if it seems expedient to their survival—even if it also seems to violate their subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience and sapience.  Like Britney Spears, many believe they’ll benefit greatly by not voicing strong objections (or even weak ones) to the status quo, and do not seek to channel whatever talents and energies they have in markedly independent ways.  To an embarrassing extent I assimilate, and you likely do as well.  However, even if one may be somewhat of a hypocrite for living under the system he/she criticizes; it needn’t instantly negate one’s speaking out. There is sense even in biting the proverbial hands that appear to feed us.  In fact, the fear of being labeled “hypocritical” seems most useful simply in preventing criticisms of money or any other parts of the system.  Of course, propaganda tools also exist to effectively sway the masses (including me) in one direction or another, making up vast networks of influence.  The tools are the corporate media, educational institutions, “Think Tanks,” PR firms, and individuals within institutions themselves.  Capitalist thinking is exacerbated by some loyalty to specific institutions, often in the form of funding.  For example, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), “A consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health,” has been funded by:  American Cyanamid, American Meat Institute, Amoco, Anheuser-Busch, Archer Daniels Midland, Ashland Oil Foundation, Boise Cascade, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Burger King, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, Coca-Cola, Consolidated Edison, Coors, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, Ford Motor Co., Frito-Lay, General Electric, General Mills, General Motors, Hershey Foods, Johnson & Johnson, Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Kraft Foundation, Kraft General Foods, Merck Pharmaceuticals, Mobil, Monsanto, National Agricultural Chemicals Association, National Dairy Council, National Soft Drink Association, National Starch and Chemical Foundation, Nestlé, NutraSweet Co.(owned by Monsanto), Oscar Mayer Foods, Pepsi-Cola, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Shell Oil, Sugar Association, Union Carbide Corp., Uniroyal Chemical Co., USX Corp., and Wine Growers of California.

 There are probably more, but I’m sure you get the idea.  In modern parlance, this council is a “corporate gangbang.”  There is no reason to doubt such an organization will have loyalty to its financiers .   Sure enough, the ACSH mission is to prove that industrial chemicals are safe, particularly industrial chemicals in food.  One can be on a standard junk food diet and still be skeptical of the ACSH, but ABC News’ John Stossel has endorsed ACSH, laughably calling them “anti-junk science”.  Interesting that Stossel, who is professedly against “big government,” would  simply overlook the possibility that these corporations may have links to big state government via subsidies, or that they are themselves essentially big  governments regulating behavior and dominating resources (also interesting,  if you switch around a few letters, the organization would be called “CASH”).  Almost predictably, Stossel also claims human activities do not contribute to climate change.(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health)

            Putting the ACSH and John Stossel aside, most of us are operating—living—under top-down managed settings (even supposedly “representative” ones), which make people vulnerable by design.  Within such an environment, people are generally expected to carry out functions without questioning them much, for doing so may conflict with policy and lead to imposed consequences.  If we openly question a policy, or the decision-making process (which are elementary things to do), we can be “written up” for “insubordination” and punished accordingly (a process many hierarchies do extremely well).   A well known punishment, getting fired, can be carried out in an efficient and timely manner and is very convenient to power.  In addition to making work more difficult and breaking people down psychologically, the threat of being fired works well as a wall between the whims of the employer and the interests of the worker.  For example, according to activist Sharon Black, the Smithfield Packing plant in North Carolina has an atmosphere wherein “Injured workers are frequently threatened with losing their jobs when they report injuries, so many say the injury occurred at home or off the job.”One may even disagree with the existence of OSHA and still recognize the tactic employed here.(http://www.workers.org/2006/us/smithfield-1019/)

           Obviously, I’m not arguing no one should ever be dismissed from an organization (that’s not for me alone to determine, regardless of my views either way), but threats of dismissal function tactically to preserve power in hierarchies around the world.  If we’re constantly under the fear of being fired, to the point where we’re afraid to tell the truth about our workplaces and society (formal or informal gag orders), then we’re never far from being deluded and mired in self-hatred.  In fact, even when we are comfortable enough to think we won’t be fired, it’s a false sense of security, as firings or lay-offs can occur for even the flimsiest, most nonsensical reasons.  In a situation where we either carry out every order–even the stupidest, most degrading ones– or possibly get fired, we may end up feeling like interlopers in our own lives, for our lives are largely run by outside threats, not peacefully by us as individuals.  As a way to ease the pain, some of us corporate drones internalize bureaucratic values, listen to the alien perception nagging in our ears (we’re paid to listen to it, after all).  But our thoughts and actions may no longer seem like our own, as the specter of bureaucracy possesses us.  If we spend enough time in bureaucratic environments, it may seem to make up our existence.  We become like the corporation we represent, stuck in a very limited universe, put in lockstep with the job, with money.  In due time, we may even come to “think” like the institutions, like money.  Where we live, what we eat and who we hang around with are certainly affected by financial considerations, by cash restraints.  So true is this that some people abstain from social relationships simply because they can’t afford them (especially if they’re wary of scam artists).  Many relationships, including families, even function like “financially linked elitist clans,” in the words of author and musician Chris Floyd.  These are arguably lifestyle choices, but are they ever entirely ours?  Are they entirely benign?  These are confusing, uncomfortable questions, and that’s the point.  The mentality of money can be like anti-social schizophrenia.  There are always pressures to ignore such basic questions, inclduing internal pressures.  The masses are caught between the interests they really have on a personal level and the hyped, formal, systematic interests they feel financially compelled to serve and represent.  It seems accurate to say virtually everyone’s familiar with this conflict of interests on some level, some even to the point of deep-rooted resentment.

            We may feel a need to be social chameleons, or we may unconsciously accumulate mannerisms and beliefs we never anticipated having, including the rigid pursuit of money.  The panicking salesperson is hardly a fiction.  Anyone has surely seen salesmanship pushed to the point of sheer desperation.  In fact, the system itself seems to be sold along very rigid ideological lines, almost desperately.  Commercials often are begging and pleading you to give them your money, your trust, your loyalty.  Such desperation is not a stable frame of mind, and certainly not stable for society, or at least for an intelligent society.  So desperate are the economic powers and their ideologies that being unemployed and not making money is portayed as loathesome behaviors.  In many societies, one supposedly needs to “straighten” his/her self out and get some kind of job, lest one becomes a most depraved misfit.  That’s an argument of desperation, of the proverbial cat in a corner.  Accordingly, money and production is often characterized as being inherently virtuous.  My argument here is that a more rational, intelligent system (and there is a difference between rationality/intelligence and rationalizing/intelligence gathering) would recognize that unemployment or not producing things is not a vicious mental disorder, and that, in many ways, work is quite problematic.

 Still, even though plenty consider money somewhat evil, money is just as often seen as representing work, and is therefore assigned a virtuous character, the means of creating a greater world.  it is cast as a “necessary evil.”  On top of this — and because of this complex, contradictory web — social life is easily poisoned by fear of scam artists, or those who take the abstract nature of money beyond its acceptable point of abuse.  Unacceptable scam artists basically define anti-social behavior.  They take belief in the virtue of money and turn it on its traditional head.  Almost paradoxically, these unacceptable scams (especially “identity theft”) are easier to carry out due to increasing use of credit cards and the electronic flow of financial information fostered by the system itself.  Though undesirable they may be, scam artists tell themselves the same thing most of us do: “I have to get mine before you get yours.”  That is why, if making money is the crème de la crème of human society, then its scam artists are truly people to admire.

In a society that’s often dishonest and “dog eat dog” in nature, where working people seemed drilled into lacking solidarity, where greed is actively encouraged and social change of all kinds becomes an abstract process, why not expect an ever-increasing number of scam artists—even charity scams?  After all, is not our society a frustrating, ideological scam?  For example, medical costs are rightly perceived by some as simply being a high-priced scam, epsecially in the American health care system.  Within the broader system, every spoken or written word could be, and arguably should be, suspect, for any speech could be a paid advertisement or used just to advance one’s career.  This is not the argument of sheer paranoia on my part, but of actuality.  Market potential has its saleable tendrils virtually everywhere, and at times it seems to trump noncommercial speech (on a more positive note, it isn’t literally everywhere, but corporations are working at it).

  Privatization, where resources are mostly put under “private,” profit-seeking bureaucratic control, requires rationalization and widespread advertising (which usually means massive advertising revenues) to promote itself.  The mainstream media itself primarily serves its biggest advertisers.  This is obviously not to say there are no truthful news reports, or that everything in every advertisement is a total lie.  However, taken as a whole, the tendency is to simply promote the system, the economy and what would honestly be called various masters, as significantly outside the realm of questioning.  For example, I have never, not even once read a major editorial against landlords, against banks or against the legal electoral system in general.  Quite plainly, an intellectual society would go out of its way to question such things, whatever the answers may be.  “Ours” noticeably does not.            

Given that many authorities exist which are supposedly sacrosanct, it makes sense to generalize the dollar-driven press and other mainstream informational systems as tools of indoctrination (plainly, why else would corporate and certain government advertising be so prominent?).  Taken as a whole, the system indeed serves an elite class.  Rather than conspiracy theory, this is incontrovertible “conspiracy fact,” or business as usual, if you’d like.  Elites exist just as surely as advertisements, and they are tied intimately to the money system and to how much of the world functions.  Carl Teichrib, a Senior Fellow with The August Review, describes the elites as a “different breed” that “stalks today’s North American landscape.”  These “trilateral elites” are “tightly bound to the world of banking and multinational corporations, and by government leaders who typically flirt between a life of public administration and privileged financial and corporate boardrooms.  It’s a landscape of intertwined big power and money interests.”(Conquering Canada: The Elite Re-Configuration of North America by Carl Teichrib:  http://www.augustreview.com/issues/regionalization/conquering_canada:_the_elite_re-configuration_of_north_america_2007071671/Also, if for some some reason you find this implausible, Infoshop.org has provided a decent list of these business elites/corporate masters at their “Matrix” site: http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/List_of_World%27s_Business_Elite)         

    As hinted at earlier, elite advertisements are often plainly unreliable as sources of truth.  But they have been very successful nonetheless, considering how many people don’t even question privatization (an issue I will return to again).  Ads are overwhelmingly about what wonderful, charming people corporations are (no, that’s not a typo, for corporations are legally recognized as persons, thanks largely to judicial decisions regarding the 14th amendment).  Corporations do not typically advertise “themselves” as crudely selfish, and especially not as only quasi-tangible positions of governing behavior.  Instead, corporations are presented as simply patriotic, even freedom-loving “nongovernmental” entities.  Corporations might be overtly global institutions having sway over entire economies, but American flags or things expressive of “American values” are preferred over hard cold facts.  We see ads with sports heroes, celebrity superstars, sexy, usually white girls and the mythic, “rugged individual” males (also usually white, such as the Marlboro Man).  Like with patriotism, much critical thinking and many elementary truths are essentially beyond this picture.

Advertisements tend to revolve around what punk icon Jello Biafra called “happy people with happy problems,” with the liberating solution of purchasing products.  For example, if you’re a heterosexual guy, how do you get that girl you’ve had your eye on?  Drink this alcoholic beverage (and spend a certain amount of cash, of course)!  Or, how do you “get away from it all”?  You can always go for a real fast ride in this fancy new car (and again, spend a significant amount of cash, only at a clearer expense to our environment)!  The exclamation points are accurate as well, seeing as to how advertisements are most often designed to excite mindless, babbling passions.  By fostering a fantasy-state of one-sided self-gratification, beer and car commercials can easily ignore the realities of hangovers, fights, emotionally scarring one-night stands, drunk driving, traffic jams, traffic tickets, road rage, pollution contributing to ozone holes, noise, car breakdowns and accidents, etc.  Of course, this is not to say people do not enjoy these products.  They are, in a real enough way, the will of the people.  However, a one-sided, basically utopian view of corporations and products is always very deceptive, especially when so much of it is only to maximize profit.  Intelligent consumers should consider cost-benefit analyses and full corporate history, things often lacking in advertising or public relations, for obvious reasons.  Yes, there is a noticeable move in a less Utopian direction among some advertisers.  For example, some alcohol advertisements remind viewers to “Drink responsibly.”  Also, certain car manufacturers suggest they are more environmentally sound (suggesting auto pollution actually exists as a significant problem).  This seems much more sensible than totally ignore consequences, but a comprehensive picture of reality is still generally diverted, and plainly so.

            Accordingly, to make room for McEden, the greater social dynamics of privatization are brushed away from sight.  Florian Opitz, a German filmmaker, recently expressed the elementary danger of privatization (or corporate “globalization,” as it is sometimes called):   “Who will have access to water, energy, public transport and healthcare?  Only those who can afford it.”  Your average 30 second ad snippet does not express such basic concerns for the poor.  Expressing such concerns would almost be tantamount to calling for revolution, as opposed to the usual bashing of poor people, or support for militarism common in political systems.(Opitz interview:  http://www.infoshop.org/inews/trackback.php?id=169)

            It’s important to note another strange ideological standard in American media.  One needn’t be a genius to notice how, quite generally, universal healthcare is often condemned in America as “big government,” yet big government militarism is considered just fine for billions in tax dollars.  Some ridicule the concept of healthcare being a universal right, which is understandable, but why might many Republicans and others define American militarism basically as a “God-given” right?  Here’s my hypothesis:  Corporate capitalism and state militarism are truly in the interests of elites.  On the other hand, universal healthcare, flawed an dobjectionable though it may be, might theoretically help the poor, whom the American system would much rather punish (“why can’t they just help themselves,” we’re supposed to instantly say).  Some might dismiss this hypothesis as an “emotional appeal,” but what other rationale could there be?   We are consistently told how American big government can work in Iraq, but our healthcare system is allegedly damaged beyond all repairs, unless of course it’s converted into larger and larger profits for “private” coprorations.  One can be overwhelmingly against the state and acknowledge that it could still help people out, at least in some marginal way.   Creating deaths abroad with government money seems more highly regarded than directly saving lives in hospitals.  Accordingly, I have seen infinitely more advertisements and editorials from the military perspective (and implicitly for the Iraq war) than from people such as Opitz or Nancy Davies, an activist who has written of the need “to confront the great transnational corporations and the hand-over policies of the Mexican State,” and to “denounce the grave social and environmental damage which they have caused.”  Not only do such people have legitimate alternative views, but their attitudes may be as fierce as that of Bill O’Reilly and other rightwing commentators.  They may even suggest that “privatization” of resources feeds the power of the omnipotent state (and any of its wars), which seems to be an unthinkable thought.  Views on state-corporatism (like Davies’) could be relevant to international political discussion—especially given the wave of hysteria regarding the American-Mexican border as I write this—but alleged cash savings and becoming an “army of one” for the “War on Terrorism” serves the system better.  (http://narconews.com/Issue46/article2768.html)

As a result, few pay attention to the implicit sentiment of Opitz and Davies, that expansionist corporate/state hierarchies, and money, create social divisions which shape lives into harsh and bitter experiences with absurd and abusive priorities.  Indeed, supported by ignorance of the vast spectrum of opinion and strange standards, the general “dog eat dog” philosophy has an elaborate network from which to feed.

We didn’t “win” in Iraq.

Despite claims that America won in Iraq, we’re likely to still see reports
 like this one from April 24, 2010:
“A wave of bombings targeting Shiites, a market in Baghdad
 and a neighborhood in Anbar province killed at least 61
people and wounded more than 100 others Friday, police said.
The strikes conjured memories of the bloodshed that once engulfed
 both the capital city and the vast province every day.”
(“At least 61 dead in Iraq bombings,” CNN Wire Staff, CNN.com, April 24, 2010:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/23/iraq.violence/?hpt=T2)

True solutions come from putting aside ideology

Though often dismissed as a “liberal,” I have never voted Democrat,
 praised Kerry’s service, or anything similar.
Indeed, it is not my aim to have Democrats in power.
What is my aim?
Am I a Republican?
No!
True solutions come from putting aside ideology.
Ultimately, my aim is to have no one person, political party or entity “in power.”
In my view, way too much effort is wasted on formal “politics,” with only marginal
 attention focused on actual issues — many which are caused or fed by “the system” itself anyway. 
The dangers of focusing on power-wrangling are obvious.
In the event of a true national disaster, recovery efforts would
 require more than marginal effort.
And, due to the possible scope of a disaster, solutions
(and planning) should not simply be up to military planners, politicians and cops.
As much as possible, we should generalize the public safety functions of human society.
Would that be dangerous?  Not really. 
Existing authorities are no less corruptible and incompetent than
 anyone else would be with the same level of training.
Why hasn’t society totally collapsed under its
 own systemic corruption?
We’ve been pretty lucky so far, but not without hard work from humanitarian activists. 
 That’s not just radical anarchist literature, a conspiracy
 website or an overzealous Wikipedian talking.
No, it’s implied by the historical record.
Luck, hard work and the power of logic can indeed overcome ideology. 
Unfortunately, many continue to overlook bare facts as Republicans continue to blame
and judge the Democrats, and vice versa.

A simple, general observation about the Hurricane Katrina disaster

On one hand there was sympathy coupled with outrage over the inept response,
and calls for relief and understanding of the grief endured.
Others, however, blamed the residents of New Orleans, mocked them for their
hesitancy or inability to flee and, often enough, emphasized commercial
 opportunities available now that land and housing could be taken from those
 who had either fled or perished.
Generally speaking, the latter are absolving themselves from any possible blame, 
assuming Katrina was only a natural disaster and nothing more.
However, the real disaster was essentially manmade; caused by the poorly designed levee system and the slow response.
Nonetheless, the differences in attitude are significant, even vast,
and should not be ignored.
Check it out for yourself and see where you stand.

Everyday seems like doomsday

It seems we’re experiencing a cultural and economic decline, leading into a new, high-tech Dark Age. Don’t get me wrong.  Consumerism has probably given you brief flickers of fulfillment — but they are fleeting, and typically little is learned.  Still, you may say, capitalism gives us stuff to do with our lives. More importantly, you have stuff to do with your life. Supposedly, that’s what having a politico-economic system is all about. And, because we have so much stuff to do within it, a lot of thought must go into running it, right? It’s easy to assume that, quite often, society is run like an actual program — meaning people are capable of making relatively complex arrangements over flexible periods of time. And indeed they are. It sounds fine and good to me at first, too. However, the more I think about it, the less sustainable it sounds. Assuming the system is all that complex, much still goes overlooked. Hunger and poverty seem practically inevitable because, for a variety of reasons (none being any one person’s fault) many literally couldn’t produce their own food wherever they live. And, if you are consumer in our global economy, that’s a problem that will, in some way, relate and trace back to you some day. Chances are you drive a vehicle, and I won’t criticize you for it. We all have our convenient needs, and I don’t believe people are “evil” because they drive.   However, it actually does cause serious pollution problems, and, by that fact alone, contributes to social alienation.  The point is, we’re far from perfect, and our perennially new and improved global system clearly mimicks and enhances that fact.

Just some food for thought.