The Power of the Pretext

When one peruses the history of mankind, it is difficult not to notice certain patterns--how, in the rise and fall of civilizations, as historian Carroll Quigley noted, there are periods of migration, expansion, and decline; how a civilization's expansion is directly proportional to its economy and upward social mobility; and how wars between civilizations begin, and how they are terminated either through conquest or truce.

Those of us who studied those patterns suspected well enough back in 2002, that the persistent claims by both the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Labour government that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction ("WMDs"), whether true or false,  would inevitably lead to military action in Iraq.  Those suspicions were confirmed when the Bush administration mobilized troops the region, while claiming that such mobilization was merely a precautionary measure, should Iraq's government at the time prove resistant to U.N. efforts to search for the WMDs. 

Few seem to remember that no WMDs were found, but most do remember the invasion itself, and in all likelihood consider the justification for that invasion and "regime change" to be simply the removal of Saddam Hussein.  This is because of what we may call the Pattern of the Pretext, especially in regards to empire civilizations going to war--that Iraq was suspected of harboring WMDs was merely the pretext for invading, occupying, and establishing a new government in Iraq.

We note this pattern, because now the Obama administration has a pretext of its own in regards to Iran--on Tuesday last, the administration claimed that an Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to the United States Adel Al-Jubier was foiled by FBI and DEA agents.  Assuming that story is indeed true, while we might give credit to the FBI and DEA, the administration went farther, and took sudden steps to ensure not only that the entire world was aware of the plot, but that it should unite in at least isolating Iran through sanctions.  Deja vu--back in 2002, the Bush administration went to the United Natons with supposedly incontrovertible evidence of WMDs in Iraq, determined to convince the world that those WMDs could be used in terrorist plots.

Say and think what you will about Iran.  Believe what you will about Iran and nuclear capablities and terrorism.  We do not write this post to disclaim such.  One may even speculate that banging the war drums provides for a nice diversion from the Occupation protests.  But know this:  the war drums are most certainly being banged, and, as with the war drums that have been banged before, they are being banged with the drumsticks of the pretext.

Letters from The Occupation

The image above will stand alone in this post for now, as it pretty much says it all.

Some Input for the Occupation Movement

Historically, the most effective movements focus on one, fundamental, principle change: in the United States, the founding fathers focused on independence from England; in the nineteenth century, the big movement focused on slavery's abolition; in the early twentieth century, there was women's sufferage and prohibition.

With their official list of grievances now posted, there is little doubt, anymore, that those "occupying" Wall Street have one thing on their mind--they are dissatisfied with corporate greed:  "We come to you at a time," they declare, "when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments."  Very well.  With this single statement, they declare their cause.

Few could argue that many of their more specific claims are not prime examples of the behavior on the part of corporations that have contributed significantly, if not implicitly caused, the economic difficulties the United States, and indeed the world, now face.  Moreover, and as importantly, their claims touch a nerve in many people who may consider themelves victims of such corrupt behavior, as ever more register their support for the cause, in ever more locations in the U.S., as well as other countries.

However, though they have made it clear enough that the source of their discontent is corporate greed, they seem to fail to recognize that the government, which they effectively "run", is no less implicit in the corruption that greed fosters, and that the only real difference is what form the greed takes, in the collusion between corporations and government.  They mark their disgruntlement with entities that, among other things, have taken bailouts at taxpayers' expense, but fail to make accountable the politicians who authorized the bailouts, and thus squandered taxpayer funds.  Indeed, greed is the ultimate impetus in the collusion inherent in the corporatist structure, but while corporations are greedy for profits, we must not forget that the politicians that facilitate those profits are no less greedy for power.

With the attention that it is now getting, the Occupation movement that is now spreading has a grand opportunity to affect a great and radical change in this country, and to do that, all they need do is to address the one, fundamental issue that harbors at the core of the corruption that is now the source of so much disgruntlement.  But it is not greed.  Greed has forever been and will forever be something between a man and his God, if he has one.  It is a nasty side effect of all economic structures.  It is a moral issue, not a political issue, and if the history of the United States shows us anything, it is that a people, even unified in their intentions, can neither dictate nor legislate morality.

We have already discussed in these web pages what we believe to be the real and fundamental causes of the ever widening economic disparities facing the American people.  For what it's worth, consider this our input to the serious and important discussion that you have brought to the attention of the world.  As we explained in our last post here, we are with you in spirit, for we, too, consider ourselves part of the 99%.  But we cannot continue participation in a dicussion that remains blind to the realities of the world's Corporatocracies, and looks to government to solve the problems that government is complicit in creating in the first place.

The "Occupation" of Wall Street

Back on Constitution Day, September 17, inspired by the Arab Spring movement, a group of about 1,000 activists began a protest in the streets of Manhattan, in the vicinity of Wall Street.  Stemming from the group calling itself Anonymous, as well as other groups dedicated to civil disobedience, the protesters marched and waved their placards with no conspicuous leader, and no real actionable agenda.  As the protest maintained its peaceful intentions, it received little media attention.  Yet, the activists of this protest were nonetheless passionate and unmovable--so much so, that the protest not only continues to this day, but has gained in strength and size, and has even spread to other cities, as those sympathetic their cause have now convened to protest in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and Washington. 

Although leaderless and without a concrete agenda, the protest itself, called in some circles the new American Revolution, is devoutly dedicated to raising awareness of the greed and corruption endemic in the American economic and political system.  To put it simply, these protesters are fed up.  The official Occupy Wall Street website summarizes that "the one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."  Their live feed at times shows clips from films such as the 1976's Network, where news anchor Howard Beal encourages his television audience to go to their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Such emotion has apparently tapped into the general sentiment of an increasing number of Americans.  Hence, the movement has attracted activists of all types and creeds, each demanding their own resolutions--Leftists call for raising taxes on the rich and on corporations, ending corporate welfare, and support for trade unions; Libertarians call for an end to the Federal Reserve System, an end to corporatism, and an end to all wars.  These protesters are Jews as well as Muslims, Christians as well as Atheists.  And their numbers are growing.

And as its size and scope increases, so does the media attention, if only for the lack of media attention it has received thus far.  When the protest first began, MSNBC's Kieth Olbermann exclaimed, "if that's a tea party protest in front of Wall Street about Bernanke [...], it's the lead story on every network newscast.  How is that disconnect possible in this country today with so many different outlets and so many different ways of transmitting news?"  But, yesterday, October 2, now into the third week of the protest, roughly 700 protesters were rounded up and jailed for blocking a traffic lane of the Brooklyn Bridge, and face charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, which simply could not go unreported by most of the news agencies.  The mass arrest has even sparked a debate about whether the NYPD wasn't acting a little heavy-handed.

It is indeed difficult for anyone who has witnessed the monetary and political collusion and corruption that has taken over the economic and political system of the United States to not support the underlying sentiment of those who dedicate their lives and livelihoods to this protest.  We are with them in spirit, if not out there with them, with our own placards.  This may or may not be the beginning of another American Revolution, but as long as it lasts, it will nonetheless put a test on us all, to see who is on which side of the current and rising politicoeconomic fence, as either one must side with the corrupt corporatist elements of the monetary and power structure, or must ultimately pledge their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor."

So Much for Democracy

Speaking before the Rotary Club today, North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue said, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that." Later in the afternoon, Perdue's office clarified by explaining, "Gov. Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what’s best for the people they serve."

Hyperbole--meaning "exaggeration." As in, "just kidding". But, as the saying goes, no one is ever "just kidding."

We can say this because of an op-ed article, written a couple of weeks ago by Peter Orszag, President Obama's former Budget Director, and now Adjunct Senior Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations. In it, Orszag suggests that the political gridlock in Washington, these days, is due to increasing voter polarization, and that to stem such polarization, "what we need [...] are ways around our politicians". Among the means he suggests, is the creation of "more independent institutions," such as the Congressional Commissions that are becoming more commonplace. But, in sum, he suggests that "we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

"A bit less democratic." Like the suspension of Congressional elections for two years?

Well, so long democracy. It was nice knowing you.

America's Failing Corporatocracy

In May 2010, President Barack Obama paid a personal and well-publicized visit to a solar panel manufacturing company in California, called Solyndra.  In order to promote government "investment" in green technology, the Obama administration granted Solyndra a $535 billion loan guarantee.  The guarantee had been applied for and denied under the Bush administration, but the company's investors and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign.  They had also spent over a million dollars lobbying Congress on bills that would benefit companies in the business of clean energy production.  Thus, the administration fast-tracked the company's loan application.  But, in early September 2011, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and is now not only under FBI investigation, but is also being sued by the 1,100 workers who were abruptly laid off.  Meanwhile, taxpayers are now liable for the $535 million, in order to cover Solyndra's defaulted loan.

We post this news neither to single out a failed corporation, nor to single out a poor economic decision on the part of a presidential administration.  Rather, we deliver this news so as to explain that the Solyndra affair now typefies what can happen when government crawls into bed with corporations.  And anymore, crawling into bed with corporations is what government does most effectively.  Political party affiliation matters not, for both Democratics and Republicans do it.  For better or for worse, the United States has become a full-fledged corporatocracy, and as the economy flails and wags and sinks, so does the government that marries it. 

Few could, or even would, argue that government does not benefit most those who contribute to it.  Politicians cater to campaign contributors, if only to get more contributions.  Meanwhile, government funds are proportioned (lately, under the guise of "stimulus" measures), loans are guaranteed, and regulations are legislated and subsequently enforced by newly created regulatory bodies, all to the benefit of specifically those entities that have contributed.  As those companies succeed, more is contributed to the politicians who perpetuate and propagate them; and when they fail, they're "bailed out."

Yet, though many may admit to America's corporatism, few seem to recognize that the ones who must ultimately pay for it is, well, everyone else who's not a member of the corporatist structure.  The taxpayer.  The voter.  Joe and Josephine Sixpack, who still naively believe that America is the land of opportunity, but can't start their own business because they're regulated and taxed out of the prospect, or because they lack the mountain of funds necessary to contribute to the campaigns of those politicians that would help them.  As a result, they must resign themselves to their workaday jobs in order to make enough money to buy their food from the corporations that process it, and to pay their taxes to the government that subsidizes and regulates the food processing corporations.

It is no wonder that the call is often heard for a "viable third party."  Yet, even members of prospective third parties are most likely to be co-opted into the corporatist structure.  Greens are absorbed by the Democrats; Libertarians are catered to by Republicans.  The only difference becomes what corporations would benefit from whomever is in power.  Such is in the nature of American politics, we suppose, and so it is even less wonder that so many are indifferent to the whole mess.  Yet, such is the state that the country currently finds itself in.

Media Marginalization

The Republicans held another debate last night in Orlando, Florida.  Sponsored and monitored by Fox News and Google, we here in this office were actually impressed with the format, and with the live polls and questions that were offered online, even while the candidates debated.  Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two current "frontrunners", so-called by the Establishment media had a very nice mudslinging match, while the more marginal candidates struggled for air time.

However, the most astonishing thing happened after the debate was over.  Fox News held an online poll, asking viewers who, in their opinion, "won" the debate.  The poll remained online for a few minutes, and as it did so, the numbers racked up for, of all people, Ron Paul.  Yet, before too much longer, Fox News removed the poll from its site, and before the evening was over, issued a separate declaration entitiled, "Experts: Mitt Romney wins debate ... again".

This is not the first time Congressman Paul's presidential campaign has been marginalized.  In fact, if there was a record for a candidate being most marginalized by the media, Ron Paul would be in Guiness, hands down.  In every poll this office has witnessed, asking who won a debate in which Mr. Paul was an option, he has won, sometimes by double digits.  In the Iowa straw poll, he lost out to Michelle Bachmann by a mere percent or two, yet while Bachmann was interviewed on all the networks, nothing was mentioned of Ron Paul.  Nothing.  More attention was given to Rick Santorum for withdrawing from the race. Such neglect of a candidate has been so obvious, Jon Stewart, in a Daily Show spot, asked, "why is everyone still ignoring Ron Paul?"

There is no doubt in this author's mind why Paul receives such disaffection:  as a former Libertarian, and as currently a Republican who still holds to his libertarian principles, he's far removed from being part of the Establishment.  As one who holds unswervingly to the principles of less government, more personal responsibility; who has written a book calling for the end of the Federal Reserve System; who has called and voted repeatedly to end United States militarism abroad, he's not just an outsider, he's an outsider to even the regular "outsiders."

Say and think what you will about Ron Paul, but we write about him today to provide a verbal snapshot of twenty-first century America, where the Establishment, i.e., the ruling political class and the colluding media, squelches the authentic voices of those they claim to protect and defend.  This Establishment is concerned not with voters, and not with the welfare of the populace, but only with their own interests, their own political agenda, their own income.  This Establishment is the very reason why the country is in the shape that it's in.  This Establishment is the reason why everything becomes more expensive, while ever fewer people can afford any of it.  And this Establishment is the reason why those not of the Establishment must resort to instruments such as the increasingly-hated Tea Party just to be heard.