Hermit's Weblog
everything your mother never taught you about how the world really works.

Fri, 27 Jul 2007

I love Bill Moyers, but...

Tonight there was a long discussion on Bill Moyers Journal about American foreign policy in Iraq. Mostly this discussion focused on President Bush's recent escalation of talk about Al-Qaeda being the main bogeyman in Iraq. Those interviewed on the Journal disputed this assertion of the Administration - Al Qaeda in their view was not the problem and the Administrations actions in Iraq were only making the relations between the America and the Muslim world worse.

I wouldn't want to argue that point, except for the fact that I think that the President really doesn't believe at all his own assertions about Al Qaeda. It is as if the supposed debate over foreign policy doesn't even recognize what the real policy is, for in my view the assertions of the President as to why we need to continue the War in Iraq are and were lies from the beginning. Bush is asserting Al Qaeda to consciously misdirect the conversation onto an entirely bogus theme, in order to continue to hide the real reasoning behind the Administration policies.

Let me try to explain the real world to those who are only paying slight attention, and who like Bill Moyers seem to think that an argument with Bush's statements is a valid argument at all. In a very real way this is all a kind of three pods and a pea game. You try to follow where you think the pea is, when it was never under any of the pods in the first place.

Now some of you will say its all about oil, and not about democracy or even about a global war on terror (all of which are previous hiding the real pea moves of the administration). Yes, oil is a factor, but not in the way we think. The truth is much more nasty and scary.

Imagine you are one of the Lords of Finance, the obscenely rich in the world of the Western Democracies. You own some of the best minds in the world as your servants (they work for the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission). Even so, only a very few of them know your real agenda, for the research these minds do for you is divided into pieces, and only a few of them ever see all the parts put together. This is what you know.

The world is headed for the garbage dump. The movie Children of Men is fairly accurate - the Western Democracies are on their way to essentially third world status. There will not be enough work, the middle classes will mostly disappear, and the very rich will run a world consisting essentially of billions of poor people. The very rich will be able to do this, because they are even now in the position to hire private armies, many of which have been being trained for years in wars in Africa and now are getting their final training in the Middle East.

These armies will have the very best weapons in the world, by and large supplied by American inventiveness and technological expertise. There is going to be a huge financial collapse, and probably a related infrastructure and agricultural collapse. All these are quite large interdependent complex systems, and the experts owned by the Lords of Finance know how fragile the whole system is. In a previous post, called "Economic Illusion - International Liquidity and play money in cyber-space", I pointed out the fake money bubble (no real value in any currencies created by Central Banks all over the world for the last 75 plus years). When the air goes out of this, money will mean nothing, and power (your own well equipped armies) will mean everything. The poor will live on the debris of a civilization that has collapsed, and consider themselves lucky if they get a job working in the sub-basement of a place that manufactures something the very rich want.

The world will consist of feudal-like corporate economic domains and nation states will have disappeared. Technological research will go forward, but raw power will be the main "currency" in use in the world. Servants of the rich will comb the poor for talent, and the talent will feel lucky to do whatever is needed for the little that is offered. The talent can be anything from someone who is a natural healer (the very rich want the best health), a good farmer, a psycho-path to be a killer-soldier, a good looking nine year old to be the pet of the week for a fat pervert. Make up your own worst nightmare, we are going to see it.

Knowing this is coming (its sooner than you think, because what is happening in the financial markets today are the first stirring winds of a very dark and dangerous worldwide economic storm), the Lord's of Finance wanted to have power in place in the Middle East in order to control the oil fields after the collapse. Not now in the present, the way most of us think, but for after the whole world goes in the toilet.

That's why the complex modern bases were built (under everyone's noses) in Iraq. It isn't our American soldiers that are going to live there, with all their nice amenities, but the paid mercenaries of the the very rich. These are essentially castles for these armies to live in while the collapse happens, and from which they will seek to control enough of the oil field production so as to keep the very rich in oil for a long long time (probably long enough to bring back nuclear powered electricity generating plants, only this time without all those costly and unnecessary safety rules). Since there will be no nation states, there will be no regulation of corporate excess. The Lords will live safe in their nice enclaves, in the best places, away from the worst pollution the world has ever imagined.

They don't even care about global warming, because with enough energy, technological innovation and raw military power, you can live anyway and anywhere you want, while the rest will just have to survive if they can. Having sucked the life out of the world economy, they believe they can survive any descent into barbarism.

Since nobody is looking in this direction (in terms of the real policies behind what the Western Democracies do, including the Bush administration), the players can make it appear that everything is as is to be expected and trick us into arguing about all kinds of things other than what is actually happening. And, since it will be a world-wide economic collapse, no reason to be concerned about China and India, for their very rich are making ready for the same world, which anyone really paying attention can see coming. Seem callus to you? Of course, but when in history did the powerful and the rich every do anything but be callus and self serving.

Anyway, that's the real reasoning behind what the Bush Administration is doing in Iraq, even if little George might not himself know it. Somehow he is getting his instructions, and is convinced its the righteous thing to do. Maybe he is the religious nut job people think, which makes him an even better fool-tool for those who are really really smart and can afford to own the best minds for sale.

Now what I haven't said, if you reread the above carefully, is that this idea of the Lords is actually going to work out the way they think. Its their PLAN, but it remains a guess even for their experts, and lets face it, these folks like to play with fire, think power and money makes them invincible and are willing to risk everyone else, as long as they BELIEVE they can keep themselves and theirs safe.

As for the rest of us? Well, we are smarter than the Lords think we are. We will survive, and if we understand what to do to make this seeming dark future work for us (by building a new civilization in the sense of a spiritual culture), things will be tough, but not impossible. You see, in civil society, in cultural creatives and in other related places, wisdom is being planted and grown and harvested. Wisdom ultimately beats power and might and wealth, because it doesn't even play that game. We will survive by cooperation, while they will believe they rule because they appear to dominate. We let them have their illusion of dominance. We understand they are moral children, incapable of understanding the riches of a truly spiritual culture based on love and brother and sisterhood. Perhaps we should even pity them.

At the same time, we can't stop them. We can't eliminate from the world the morally insane who never have enough. So, instead, we pity them, we move aside, we make our own spaces where daily life is rich in comradeship and stories, and where children are honored and educated so as to understand that owning and dominating are not what life is about. Life is about that spiritual spark - that bit of the divine in each individual. We nurture that spark in each other and in our progeny. That spark will exist beyond the limits we now imagine for any single biography. At the same time, that story is a longer tale and if you want to know more about it, you'll have to read my book: the Way of the Fool.

[23:53] | [] | # | G

Fri, 13 Jul 2007

The Administration Who Cried Wolf

Well, they're at it again - times get tough on the Administration, and out come the terror alerts. I guess their mothers never read them enough fairy tales (wisdom in the guise of stories). What's worse to me is that they are also sitting there in their bunkers and wishing for something horrible to happen again, so they can say: "I told you so."

Of course the Democrats aren't much better. Nor the Press. I watched PBS news yesterday, and one of their main talking heads was doing an interview with someone from the right and the left (always have to represent both sides - as if two liars presenting two different kinds of lies provide any help in finding the truth). The Press could lead in the direction of the truth by asking far better questions, but then nobody official from the left or the right would come on their shows. So the Press asks a lame question of one, and then the other, - suggesting that this is objective journalism.

Its not even journalism at all, by the way. It's much more like a lame-brained game show where the host (the so-called journalist) has to keep the contestants happy so that nobody jumps across the table and hits someone else in the face. Never mind that the watcher/listener has to clean the horse shit out of their living room when the show is over.

Here's the right side lady about the war on terror - Iraq division, I'll paraphrase:

"Oh me, oh my. Great horrors await if we leave. Its all Al-Queda all the time (that's today's talking point folks, nobody on the right deviates from the script). The dominoes will fall. Only we can stem the evil tide. Democracy world wide is in danger!"

Here's the left side guy on the same subject:

"Well we do have to defeat the terrorist, but the American People don't want this war anymore and we need to follow the American People. Yes, we Democrats have no actual foreign policy, but no policy is better than the one we've got from the Administration!"

Now lets pretend there is an actual journalist there, someone who has been following this matter closely for years, does a lot of research and isn't interested in ass kissing the guests.

"A couple of questions folks - mostly in the form of some observations by someone who is actually thinking here, and you can fight each other over who tries to give an honest answer.

"Isn't the War on Terror just bullshit? I mean, think about it. Even with 9/11, that same year drunk drivers killed 10,000 people on the highways in our own country (and hundreds of thousands die from problems related to the drug alcohol, while we jail millions for a makes you smile and be peaceable thing that grows like a weed). Several millions of people died of aids and starvation world-wide. So we spend half our national budget on war toys for neo-con imperialist children who think the world is the place for a neat game of chess, and people still die and suffer of all the things we don't bother to fix in far greater numbers than those that die from terrorism. This fantasy war on terror only makes a certain elite class of bankers and industrialists richer (they are already obscenely rich). Of course, since you are in the pockets of the corporations that own Washington, and get you to do anything but solve real world problems, why are we surprised you come on TV and say the same misleading lies politicians have been saying since the first one - yea that snake - tricked Eve into giving Adam that damn apple."

[13:31] | [] | # | G

Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Sicko - rethinking health care questions

Everyone should see Michael Moore's Sicko documentary, of course. Just for the great humor if nothing else. There is also the quite startling commentary of an Englishmen about how the establishment intentionally tries to breed hopelessness and fear in a populace in order to keep them suppressed. This was also part of discussion where the idea was put forward that governments are supposed to fear their people, not people fear their governments (which is what has been and is being promoted strongly in the US by the elites who control behind the scenes. But that is a whole other story, and not the point of this blog entry.

Here we are going to examine a narrow question that Sicko raises, that has been raised before and about which there will be a lot of dumb stuff written by the media pundits and said by politicians in regards to the question of the need for universal health care. The tendency will be to frame the question as a conflict between free market capitalism and socialism, with the idea being that a free market (being thought to be democratic) is essential to a free people, while socialism is an excess of government interference in the lives of people. Our Nation's Founders would shudder to hear such a weak and illogical proposition put forward, so lets see if we can see past the framing spin of those who don't want this examined too closely.

Here's John Maynard Keynes on an aspect of the subject: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."

Free Market Capitalism (or laissez-faire capitalism,, see Milton Friedman's works) is a belief system, that is a kind of economic religion. In practice there is as little free market as possible, for between the monetary controls of the Federal Reserve (Central Banking), and the buying and selling of legislative influence in Washington D. C., the game is rigged from the beginning. In fact to frame the question as a matter of which economic religion one adheres to (free market capitalism or socialism), is to not notice what goes on in economic reality.

From the Founder's point of view, here are some better questions: What is the purpose of Government? What should be the relationship of the People and the Government? Granted we need social order, what does Government contribute to social order?

One of the agreed purposes of Government is to do things that the People need that they can't do well on their own. For example: run a war, build roads, run a post office, and so forth. So we start with a need of the People and see how best to satisfy that need.

What more primary need could a People have then health care. Can they provide that for themselves? Well, we can do preventative health care, but when we get sick and seriously ill (or suffer a trauma), we need many things we can't do by ourselves, and so the question is whether Government should provide for this need. In so-called socialist countries (for which we really mean all the Western Democracies except the USA), as the ability of medicine to help people with illness became more and more developed and complicated (extending our lives and making it possible for us to be more economically productive), the Government was asked to take on the task of providing us with these needs we could not meet as individuals.

Thus, as medical science conquered more and more territory for everyone's benefit during the 19th and 20th Centuries, a dialog arose in the Western Democracies as to how to provide for these increasingly costly needs, and a kind of theological war broke out over economic ideas (socialism vs. capitalism). We could also see it as a kind of experiment between the two approaches - which would work better?

Well, with Sicko the evidence is clearly in, and in the USA where the economic theology of free market capitalism is practiced, it is clear that the so-called free market did exactly what Keynes said it would - it benefited the nastiest of people for the nastiest of reasons all the while being presented as if it was going to benefit us all. When we ask the right question - is health care something we need government to do for us, or will free market capitalism do it better, the answer is clear from the experiment. Free market capitalism benefited the needs of those who want high salaries, profits and stock market goodies. It is really a parasitical relationship. We get ill, and the while the illness is depleting our life forces, unregulated businesses our sucking on our economic viability.

Don't be surprised though, when in spite of Sicko the public dialog stays locked in the false and illusory economic religion discussion and never gets down to the fundamentals of what services does a Government, which really only exists as a grant of power from the People, need to provide back to us for our health care (instead of subsidizing Corporations who prey on us from morning to night).

[12:06] | [] | # | G

< July 2007 >
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 91011121314

Joel Wendt


Shapes in the Fire
some thoughts on the nature of public life
Celebration and Theater: a People's Art of Statecraft

Web Sites