|
The Duopoly of Deceit
by Debs is dead
lifted from a comment
Tangerine’s post details the favorite foreign policy ploy of the
two party state. Even if Gore didn’t use 911 as an excuse to invade
Iraq , if one examines the way that the Clinton administration kept the
screws on Iraq whilst repeating the Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction lie ad nauseam, it is plain that even if the dems worry
their supporters may not approve of unjustified increases in the
empire’s territory, they are quite prepared hold the line until their
mates in the other mob are able to do it for them.
An objective examination of the dem behavior since WW2 – Korea (dem
prez), attempted invasion of Cuba (dem prez), Vietnam escalation (dem
prez), Dominica (dem prez), Kosovo (dem prez) and the ones I can’t
remember shows that the dems political organization is geared towards
the empire’s expansion.
If someone could be bothered to check the history of amerika’s
territorial growth since independence I imagine you would find the same
duopoly of deceit. One party aggressively expanding the territory while
the other alleges to be a party of peace, only it never gives anything
back the aggressors stole (initially from native amerikans, later from
Mexico, later still anywhere in the world that amerika thought it
wanted) and when something goes down which means that amerika must
strike while the iron is hot to get the land and the less aggressive
party is in power, that party does a policy reversal alienating it’s
base but nevertheless participating in the grab. I imagine that was the
mechanism by which 100 plus treaties with the indigenous people were
broken.
The political system is fatally flawed. I can’t help but marvel at
the self deception that leads peeps to think that the outrageous
excesses of the bushco era are somehow different. That this hasn’t
happened before.
Most people know about the way that the indigenous people were
tortured starved and dispossessed, do they think that is different but
the constitution was upheld for everyone else since until bushco?
Cause the japanese interned in WW2 wouldn’t agree neither would the
Rosenbergs who were denied myriad constitutional protections when they
were railroaded to execution. That’s just a couple examples somehow the
constitutional safeguards fall by the wayside whenever they are most
needed. Not particularly an amerikan problem, this happens wherever
there is an over concentration of power.
A big part of the problem is the system. The idea of having one
person as the executive, all-powerful commander in chief, and head of
state, rolled into one person overwhelms the ideals invested in the
allegedly democratic way used to select this king type figure.
Amerikan society has been forced to accept a situation where people
fight to get that position of absolute power and corrupt themselves and
those around them with this process, to the point where virtually
everyone in the political classes believes anything goes.
All the checks and balances are meaningless if one person, the prez,
has the power to overrule those checks and balances. Legality is a side
issue if the prez is powerful enough to get away with breaking the law.
Right through amerika’s history the prez has over ruled constitutional
mechanisms and will continue to do so regardless of which portion of
the political establishment the prez comes from.
—
b asks: Now how might such a system be changed?
A large part of the difficulty is that the ‘System’ has served Americans well. The core beliefs of individuality, freedom, particularly economic freedom and freedom of speech, the myth of ‘small government’, coupled with moral pride at being ‘right’ (anti-racist, pro-abortion, whatever) which it fosters; the reality of a ‘rich land’ and a powerful army; the adherence to a supposedly superior economic system, have all blinded Americans to the true role of Gvmt. and politics and left them open to being scammed, hoodwinked, cheated, and to cheat themselves.
Economically, US foreign policy has not negatively impacted Americans in an obvious way; the recent (80’s on or so) sharp downturn in social mobility, the lack or dire expense of decent medical care, poor educational opportunities, etc. affect part of the population but not those who write op-eds or burble on the TV.
The US has turned into the most class driven country in the devp. world, but this is not seen, or not acknowledged, it is a taboo topic – the strength of America cannot be crippled by an ideological revolution – it would collapse. Lizard wrote: race is being used in this election as a mystifier to cloud the issues of class ..
Americans have the internets and washing machines and are not crazy murderers like duh, those sick guys in Haiti, yuck.
Objections, opposition, movements for change, even the sufferers are so scattered, divided, disorganized, ineffective as one-issue types that nothing is to be hoped from them. Their agitation simply reifies free speech, makes for feel-good, and at the same time mirrors, replicates, the struggles that go on in the corridors of power: money paid, influence bartered, acceptance struggled for, TV time obtained or paid for, powerful contacts made, etc. etc. Their very popularity (not Unions but 9/11 truth for ex.) speaks for keeping up the present system – anyone can affect events, much as better soap makers will sell more soap…leaving the basic landscape unchanged.
Empires don’t give up when they have arms. Their ppl don’t give up when they think they will be OK only others will be affected.. Grassroots movements .. hmm, but that would mean the break up of the US.
mistah C. wrote : “Tony Blair with a tan”, wonderful, I’m going to steal it.
Posted by: Tangerine | Jul 28 2008 16:08 utc | 40
Debs wrote ”they are quite prepared to hold the line until their mates in the other mob are able to do it for them.”. How true is that! The classic good cop bad cop scenario, superimposed on a national level, with the pseudo-left, be that the Democrats in the US, the Social Democrats in Germany or Labour in Britain, more than willing to play the good cop role, as long as the outcome is as desired, the pleb gets done.
These view words from one of Obama’s speeches give me the creeps:
“…I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda…”
How do you finish the fight against AQ, which these days is not so much an identifiable organisation as an idea at home in every country on planet earth? To me that sounds more like a continuation of what’s been going on for the last couple of centuries, a militaristic approach to anything that can’t be bought. From his comments on how he would without hesitation authorise incursions into and attacks on Pakistani targets, I am left with little doubt that Obama is in no way inclined to stop or even reverse the long held US policy of making the globe one big operations theatre for its armed forces, in their quest to fulfil their master’s dream, absolute world domination.
Neither Obama nor McCain are masters though, they are puppets, getting their marching orders from higher up in the chain in hushed up meetings such as this years Bilderberg conference in Va. The top of the pyramid, where everything joins, where the capital river reaches the ocean, there are no such petty distinctions such as Democrats or Republicans, left or right. I can imagine that in the echelons of real power, people very rarely talk money, they talk long term strategies on how to carve up the world and enslave mankind along the way, in those strategies money is one of many means, but not the end. When it comes down to it, its worthless, coloured paper, not even useful as toilet tissue.
Fighting terrorism, something which essentially is a police matter, will be both candidate’s excuse for continued military operations across the planet. It seems they and their league of drones don’t have the horizon to comprehend the irony tho, and by continuing the US military assault on innocent civilians in far away countries, keep playing into extremists hands. Just as planned. More extremists means more need for police and population control, the grand scheme unfolding just beautifully. What a bunch of mugs.
…And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease….
LEAD the WORLD!!!. It doesn’t matter whose ramblings on foreign policy one reads, Hillary’s, Obama’s or McCain’s, the common theme is “Running planet Earth”, almost Hitleresque, excuse the term. His language doesn’t even hide the fact that he sees himself as a warrior of sort. ”Combat threats..” Sure Obama, you do that. Have all US nuclear war heads dismantled and any further US military nuclear programs stopped. Introduce laws which will reduce the US green house gas output by significant margins in the near term. Redirect large chunks of the ‘defense budget’ to introduce free medical care for all US citizens, such as the universal health care system in Japan. Create a fund to help the 2 million refugees in Iraq back on their feet. Sign with immediate effect the Cluster Munitions and Landmines Treaties. Then come back and give the speech again. I will applaud, he made a start. Until then, Obama is a string of words.
Watching a state of the union address by US presidents is too funny. Like a mob of trained seals they clap in unison after every second sentence, one should throw them a few fishes, they are doing really well. All finished off with the habitual “God bless America”, which luckily enough includes Venezuela. However, unless Obama starts saying ‘God bless the world’, he and his ideas of being the planet’s chief honcho is as hollow as the coconut Debs was referring to earlier. Where there are no followers, there can be no leader.
…And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
Any head of state giving a speech so full of delusions of grandeur is laughed at by the wider world community, Obama being no exception. I so do hope that my future has very little to do with the US’s future, and when he talks about how we non-Americans do matter to him, then I’m feeling rather relieved to live in a country with very little oil.
Waldo #6: Obama is different and will facilitate real change in the American body-politic.
Mate, Obama is an airbag of enormous size, squeeze him and what you get is warm fluffy air, or as Paul Keating would say, all tip, no iceberg.
Just look at the fact that a Republican made it on the short list of Obama’s preferred VP’s. Or how he surrounds himself, not unlike GWB, with in my eyes criminal hacks from previous administrations, such as Madeline Albright, a viper if ever I’ve seen one. Where is there change?
Obama’s suck up to the Israel lobby is all I needed to see to know that there won’t be any meaningful change in policies surrounding this dreadful and seemingly never ending example of state terrorism. To at least maintain the status quo will be the motto. The more I see and hear of him, the more I get the impression he is a walking toothpaste ad, always smiles, big sermons, a repackaged sales rep for us.dominance.con
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jul 29 2008 10:15 utc | 49
Re B’s question, how might such a system be changed, the question would have to be first, what should a changed system look like, as this kind of determines the methods. Who decides on what the world should change to, which system is to be used? Revolutions tend to eat their children, so an armed uprising is futile. Change has to come from within. Comments above by dan of steele and swio come to mind, start small, local, and grow the movement.
The system as we know it has many weaknesses, all of which can be used to change it. Its Achilles’ heel is that it is centred around greed, money talks. And as they say, you gotta beat them with their own weapons.
I remember driving home from a weekend of protest in Kakadu National Park, where Big Biz and the government had planned a uranium mine, a huge open cut uranium mine smack in the middle of a National Park. The traditional owners of the land were most upset, and so was a large cross section of the Australian society. I got to think of the approx 1500 young to middle aged people I met, who like myself with the best intent flocked to the mine site to protest. The mine workers drove past us every morning, giving us the finger, hardly any media coverage of the event. The protests had very little to no impact, but each and every on of us would have spend at least $300 backs to get there, only to end up with mozzi bites all over. What if instead of driving there to protest, 1500 people would have stuck $300 each into a bank account, and with the half a million dollars would have paid for a high flying lawyer to file one injunction after another and run a national TV campaign?
What if every 4th person in the US, whats that, about 70 million people, donates $100, creating a fund of 7 billion dollars. How much can you do with 7 Billion, how many law suits can be filed and paid for, how many law schools can be build with no other aim than to churn out lawyers that take on the system? How many ads can be bought with which to expose the frauds and lousy characters that make up the house and senate?
Lets see who’s got the most money. Its not the corporations, it’s the people, the consumers, the ones without whom the big end of town would crumble, and with it the system they’ve built. But first, a few general observations:
• The intend to improve the lives of our fellow beings is widespread
• Many people are simply too complacent to do something, hoping other people might
• Many people can’t afford to donate to organisations working on a good cause
There are plenty of not for profit organisations representing the goodwill of the wider community. From the labor unions, to human rights organisations, to civil rights groups, to animal rights campaigners, to anti-war protesters, to Safe the Local Rainforest activists, the list is almost endless. Hundreds and thousands of organisations formed to ease the pains created by mankind. But all of them are out on their own, living of donations trickling in by people who have some cash to spare.
Although they are all fighting the same system, the opposition is fragmented, easily dealt with, one by one, each at a time. All groups are competing for the same small pool of donations, predestined to nibble on the fringes. All with a great purpose and aim, but no membership base and cash flow to really have a say.
So, how to engage the wider population in the struggle, uniting the collective goodwill in the country, creating huge amounts of cash for worth while causes without having to ask for more donations – and at the same time allowing for the community’s couch mentality? In short, how can we get more people involved in a peaceful and organically grown system change, in a landscape where people feel more and more isolated and strapped for cash? Here is my idea. Let me know what you think, couldn’t imagine a better sounding board. Picture this (and sorry it gets a bit mathematical):
Two acquaintances meet on the bus, and the following conversation ensues:
M: “I donated $50 bucks to the Kids with Cancer Foundation”
T: “But how did you find the $50, I thought you were strapped for cash”
M: “Easy, I just went shopping as normal and 5% of what I’ve spend goes to a good cause I can choose from. And the best is, in return I got invited to come along for free to an event of my choice, which this months is either meet Stephen King and hear him read from his latest book or go to a Super Bowl party with big screen and free [insert what you want, I’d say beer ].”
T: “Get out, can I come along?”
M: “Nah man, you need to be a member.”
T: “How much does it cost to join”
M: “Nothin bro, that’s the best thing, nothing. Just go shopping, and you know how to do that!”
What if there was a club, which if you joined, would enable you to have 10% off any purchase made from associated businesses. Akin to current customer loyalty reward schemes like Flybuys etc. The 10% are split the following way:
5% for a good cause of the month
4% for the Members Event Fund
1% Increasing the club membership
So say, we have a small to medium sized city of about 100’000 people, and in this city 10% of the population joins the club, that being 10’000 people. The club also finds businesses who are interested in joining, and the 10’000 members spend say on average $1’000 at those associated business, creating a turnover of $10 million. 10% of that, 1 million dollars, goes to the club.
That 1 million is now divided up.
• Half a million dollars goes to any charity or organisations the club members collectively decide upon, be that the local Homeless shelter or the Iraqi Red Cross, their choice, every time.
• 400K goes to fund entertainment and other events which help the members to connect and socialise. Imagine the parties you can throw with that money. Or invite Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich to hold seminars, or organise seniors trips into the country…
• 100K goes to run the club and further increase its membership
For the consumer a win win situation. Join the club and buy from associated businesses and by doing so help one’s latent desire to finally do something about the inequalities and injustices in this world, do something for one’s conscience, with the added bonus that one is on the door list in the biggest event in town. Donating by shopping.
I deliberately kept the numbers small and even, but calculate that through on different figures and variables and the donations grow exponentially, so does the size and range of member events. Get a scheme like this working on a national level, with 30 million members, and you have a mechanism which draws out and involves the wider population, and in the process creating in excess of 1 billion dollars in donations to various organisations and aims. Not to mention the amount of $$$ to sponsor events which help reconnect society and create a platform to discuss needed change. Not just once, but every months, every quarter, every year if need be, are the funds generated to dwarf the corporate war chests.
The group which initially appears to be the loser in this scenario are the businesses, which essentially fund this club and its donations program by forfeiting 10% of their revenue. But I know personally quite a few small business operators who would be prepared to associate with such a club, if not because the proprietor has left leaning ideals, then because they can see the benefit of a reduced advertising budget. If I have 10% of the population guaranteed as my clientele, I can cut down on other expenses.
Once the club membership has reached a critical mass, businesses potentially could not afford not to join, what if the club joins up with the competition? Hey, business understands the need for concessions, all you have to have is buying power. And that’s what the club represents, in ever growing numbers. And which business wouldn’t want to be associated with the white knight on the front page every month handing over a cheque in the hundreds of thousands to local and global charities and aid organisations.
The problem I see with that idea tho is that you need incorruptible people to run such a powerful club. Where there is power, there is abuse. The club would need an organisational structure that inhibits cronyism and personal gains, with a permanent random selection of members to fill the seats on the board.
Can it be done? I reckon it can. Where there is a will, there is a way. Unite the many disillusioned and willing to help but have little money and time with the ones who don’t care but wanna have a party, and you got millions of consumers who might just be the generator of the funds needed to change the system, propping up existing charities and non for profit organisations, utilising their coverage and expertise.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jul 29 2008 12:42 utc | 50
|
