I’m NOT necessarily criticizing the police — since I don’t know what they know — and I honestly don’t know what level of response is proportionate to the threat being faced right now, but I have to be honest in saying that I can’t help but feel at least somewhat uncomfortable about the scenes coming out of Watertown. Door to door home searches. Forcing people to completely strip their clothes in the street, etc. What are your thoughts? Is it too soon to start hashing this out? Probably. But I have feelings right now and you probably do too. It’s OK for us to discuss, no?
Friend #1 of my Friend, leaves comment (after dozens of other comments):
The entire history of the FBI via COINTELPRO, etc. is waging war on their own people. It’s corrupt at the very top, and we should not be viewing them as saviours, and *definitely* should not be cheering on martial law. I have friends in Boston, and it’s a total police state right now. Meanwhile, we have no evidence shown that these guys are actually the bombers, and looking at the profile of the second guy and what people are saying about him, it seems pretty unlikely. Yet people believe whatever the fuck the media tells them. Naive.
Friend #2 of my Friend, leaves next comment:
No evidence to show? Thanks! I haven’t laughed like that in a while? R u bein sarcastic? With the No evidence bid? Lets pray ur just joshin around
My response to this network, and anyone else interested:
Thank you good friend! My heart goes out to victims and their microcosms everywhere, and to all of my friends in or from Massachusetts, and continue to condemn violence everywhere. <3
I apologize for the length and intensity of the following window to my mind, but wish to share the best of my current understanding. I find the following aspects of this case much more relevant and important than questions of such suspects being enemy combatants or criminals? In my humble logic, we should not treat any citizen as an enemy combatant unless we have declared some kind of civil war. The label of Enemy Combatants is another tool of violence just like the newest unnecessary weapons used by governments and citizens alike. With so many such tools at their disposal, I believe the reaction to these kinds of events must begin to focus much more on better root solutions.
The very framing of your comment show’s how unfortunately painful, awkward, and fear-based our collective situation is. I don’t think it’s just a scary level of clampdown. It’s so scary that you were nervous to even ask the question. Too soon? It’s probably much more constructive and productive to respectfully discuss tragic events as they are happening (to the degree we have credible info). If we wait too long, the government’s escalatory reactions can’t be minimized in real time by our people power.
Your initial framing was more in terms of police actions, but they are generally only following orders (and hOpefully often NOT -~ OathKeepers.org), so I do not see your questions or opinions as too critical of police in general. Police orders over the past dozen years are increasingly militarized (also due to the overlapping $1 trillion+, three decade War On Drugs), centralized, and standardized more seemingly by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security side of map. The majority of these organizations are also mostly filled with culturonormatively well-intentioned people, also mostly compartmentalized, following orders and standard procedures…similar to police and military hierarchies. Information sharing tools like Fusion Centers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_centers) have also been greatly expanded over the past ten years aiding centralized systems.
But the terrorizing enemy is still largely smoke in mirrors. Unfortunately, there are horrific events that get publicized 24/7 for weeks, and others that are just one side-note. Not just the terror our government directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally finances abroad, but at home too. Both the instigating media-pimped violence and ignored violence can get very bizarre a scratch or two below the surface.
Unfortunately, Friend #1′s above comment doesn’t seem too off the mark to me in this case, and many events we’ve lived through. Hello Friend #2 and some weird network of networks. It’s impossible to both succinctly sum up and document the entire history of COINTELPRO, but here’s a few starting sources listings Wikipedia, Mother Jones, The New York Times, and The Corbett Report. There’s also the European recent history of Operation Gladio, state-sponsored but covert domestic campaigns of false flag terror. Starter documentation: Wikipedia and The Corbett Report.
Sorry for the depressing but hopefully informative info bomb. Take Everything Everywhere with moderate salt, as we might have decades until state secrets expire. I’m not saying every terrorist event is a tool of some FBI informant or some agent/tool used and sacrificed, but it should pretty much Always be assumed at least one realistic possibility. Without intent to offend anyone, it honestly makes me nervous how many people find these historically likely realities to be laughable.
For a change, the mainstream media must publicly admit my kind of dissent exists and is apparently doing so a bit more for this case than in the past…though surely still blanket labeling as ‘conspiracy theories’. But two confused young extremists planning, then acting to blow up and shoot people would be a conspiracy, and is therefore simply the ‘official conspiracy theory’ until enough hard evidence can really prove any side. And if ‘our’ government cannot produce such hypothetical solid evidence due to national security (eg. 9/11 investigations), and yet we are subject to the new emergency laws resulting from the post-panic of such horror (eg. USA Patriot Act), then our form of representative government has the furthest thing from an informed and empowered populace (eg. stripped of most rights on as-needed basis). Remember, the Associated Press told us there was a video of them dropping a bag, but it nor any other real evidence has been shared [yet].
That would make the alternative narrative something closer to: impressionable young ~immigrant radicals coaxed by FBI to do something horrific whether it got a bit out of hand or not. Pure side-conjecture: perhaps the kids realized they were being used and felt an instinctive and/or culturally conditioned need to fight back against the small army hunting them. Then the local and national governments briefly and experimentally implementing martial law on a US city.
Should the alternative narrative be closer to reality than whatever current narratives are being woven for the world propaganda cycles, then interpreting this entire situation changes dramatically. Does this police state experiment, false flag initiated or not, also set a precedent? Do we the people find this acceptable? I most certainly do not. I also do not fully know how to stop them, but perhaps bombarding public offices with phone calls of protest from our homes would be a worthy first step (if those tools are shut down during a declared ‘emergency’).
Our government and it’s overlapping corporate-interest conglomerate MSM happily feed us so many harmful lies with short and long-term consequences from day to day. Why should we believe them any more during a time of crisis? Without adequate open source information from the public, they just pass us statements from the state and it’s protected mutual corporate interests.
So during the panic of a Problem, a true life-or-death crisis, we must strive to at least partially stay calm enough to think and act soundly during our Reaction. Otherwise, the Solution desired from the initial aggressor is likely to play out as they have plan…as we have not personally planned for such a scenario.
‘Our’ Reaction within mainstream narrative: Martial Law terrorizes major city, adding to initial fear of ~radical ~religious ~groups or ~lone~wolf-style terror. ‘Terrorists’ won, with ‘terrorists’ meaning mostly radical religious ‘enemy’ of the year/century.
‘Our’ Reaction from ~currently ~likely alternative analysis: Martial Law experiment on major city successfully practices control and imposes fear, following state-sponsored covert poor sap partial-victim/patsy terror. ‘Terrorists’ won, with ‘terrorists’ here meaning covert and rogue government operatives and their military-industrial friends and interests, (and at least some of their assets win).
Terror ‘real’ or ‘manipulated’, this populace programming helps mentally prepare and train the wider populace for the — I truly hope not eventual — nation-wide version of such emergency law. Without protesting a police state, do we not passively consent? If something much larger happens (which the MSM constantly fear-mongers about), what stops Obama or any future President from running a larger experiment before we even have access to any of the information of the hypothetical situation. Such performances akin to real-life Orson Welles’ The War of the Worlds are possible, ‘entitling’ yet another advancement in Orwell’s real-life Eastasia, foreign or domestic.
I know it is somewhat different with the apparent IEDs in this Boston incident, but I was still living just outside of Washington DC during the ‘Beltway sniper attacks’ of 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks . Some of those took place where I used to bike around as a kid, and one just three blocks from my house where my parents still live. Martial law was not implemented as far as I know, so it’s an interesting comparison for me to think about. Now ten years more radical, perhaps I should do some research on those events some time.
Please keep this in mind too, beautiful brothers and sisters. Without considering any alternative narratives during times of public/violence crisis, it is impossible to test each theory against new information as it develops. It is more accurate to compare all the most credible facts to as many credible possible narratives as possible. This is much easier to do by always considering all possibilities and methodically checking what adds up most rationally. I like to check the most credible alternative news sources, at first ignore their content only reading their sources, come to my own initial conclusion, then consider hearing out their take on the whole narrative. My favorite, well documented alternative sources are PeaceRevolution.org and CorbettReport.com .
To get some positive light in the rabbit holes, enter one more overlap with recent events: Big Pharma’s mood-altering medication and shootings. 30 years of mass shootings data collected by Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) shows only 15 of 62 terrorists/victims showed no prior signs of mental health and many are confirmed to be on medications. It also shows only one was a female. Not only do distressed mental states seem instrumental in self-made terrorists, but makes tools or patsies that much more impressionable and pliable. So I find this related topic pretty applicable to both mainstream and alternative narratives.
MY PREFERRED SOLUTIONS…a heavy, depressing rant this long deserves my preferred light directions.
‘Terrorism’ will not end alone by controlling various scales of various weapons or tools in the hands of citizens or police. Most terrorism is directly or indirectly state-sponsored. Martial Law is not a reasonable solution, and like the strategy of counterinsurgency, only creates blow-back and escalates violence. Our military occupies countries and, by definition, must impose some level of martial law there, surely creating inspired radicals there. Does anyone know how pissed informed anarchists in Boston are right now?
Real Solutions Options: Stop terrorizing, invading, conquering, and occupying sovereign nations. It creates more terrorists, is violent, and is wrong. To me, this minimally means pulling all troops out of all countries and de-militarizing the military (and police) only capable of preventing invasion on are soil (if that is a possible compromise). I think this would help reduce the overall gun size and count in the country with less theoretical need to protect one’s self and family from a government gone tyrannical (how many/most right-wing extremists and myself largely interpret the 2nd amendment). I am not sure all the votes in the world will be able to accomplish those solutions. So disbanding the state and peacefully asserting ourselves as sovereign citizens free to create and self-manage our communities and lives might also more purely accomplish this solution. Either way, we must remedy the injustices which create terror.
‘Freak Mass Violence’ will not end by different scales of different weapons or police tools. I imagine the rare mind on a murderous rampage with the most primitive of instincts and adrenaline functioning can usually find methods for violence and the weapons available (eg. massive cars are everywhere). The stupid weapons are controlled by the current legal state of some weird type of arms race, and I do support deescalating such races. But it would not affect the root issues, and is not worth the painful political capital required for any of these kinds of moves…for some reason. The most tragic acts of violence in our country are usually caused by people with mental health issues, often on psychotropic medications.
Real Solutions Options: Doctors and patients can stop taking medications known to be dangerous (unlike cannabis and other natural plants), not to mention passing them through to our water supply, and can urge votes against government giveaways to Big Pharma. Healthier diets of non-processed foods would also likely create a much more mentally healthy population. Encouraging, and positively reinforcing masculine identities with less associated violence might also help in the longer run.
Solutions ideally applied within mainstream narrative: Citizens have less terror and fear, less need for weapons to ‘protect against government’, ‘terrorists’ have less need to terrorize as our government would do not terrorize and occupy their homeland. Win, win.
Solutions ideally applied within alternative narratives: Citizens have less terror and fear, the few true terrorists out there are less inspired, the military is hopefully largely de-funded and dis-empowered, the minimal defensive violent forces left do not follow unconstitutional orders, money goes back to people or actually constructive projects. Win, win.
This is a bias, over-simplified, game theory style analysis, and it is way too soon for any concrete-seeming degrees of certainty on any aspect of this Boston Marathon. But hopefully this line of reasoning and example aids in how I strive to approach what reactions and solutions are most appropriate to our problems. I think to best achieve the goals of avoiding these tragic events, such strategies would have a deescalating effect and have far more net positive impact that any of the proposed solutions about to be sold over the mainstream airwaves with current winds.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. The military-industrial complex (with allies and states) is the direct or indirect cause of almost all cycles of terror. Terror cannot end unless the whole military-industrial complex ends. Period.
This animation was made about a year ago for a future episode spent better explaining the general structure of the New World Order (NWO) aka the Corporate-Industrial Complex. With no plans currently in sight for that episode, I am uploading the animation with my first song on top for your viewing and remixing pleasure.
On June 13th, Full Circle Farm was evicted from it’s illegal foreclosure fight and organic community garden. The rightful owner, David “Tat” Chow, and his roommates are now homeless and were hoping for the best from a meeting called with the Sacramento County Recorder on June 22nd. For more background on our situation, please check out SaveFullCircleFarm.org.
Mr. Vasquez and crew, thank you for not letting most of our plants and animals die. But please stop ripping up and remodeling the farm like you’ve lived there your whole life. Looks like you’ve made your choices, have fun being on the wrong side of our lawsuit against U.S. Bank.
It only takes a couple minutes! Call your representatives today!..about any issue you find important. This is a very important aspect of democracy.
In this episode of #CallingCongress, I present calls to one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, and to President Barack Obama’s office. I request they firmly reject the current escalation to war with Iran happening now, and to reject any such war in the future…NO MATTER THE JUSTIFICATION given like another false flag terrorist attack in America or Israel.
War is simply NOT appropriate and does NOT solve any of the problems the people of earth face!
Welcome friends, to the Wiki World Order Report: peacefully replacing the corporate-industrial complex. This is episode seven, Clean Elections Fight Corporate Erections. Listener supported video and audio downloads, as well as transcripts with detailed documentation and Research-Along Theaters can be found for FREE online at WikiWorldOrder.org. And please check out Facebook.com/wikiworldorder for more frequent links to potent news, documents, and alternative media in between episodes. I’m your host, Morgan Lesko.
A lot of people feel their like votes are not worth anything anymore, and opt out of participating in that part of democracy. We can use non-participation in trinket capitalism could help defund the corporate-industrial complex, or really send a message via mass strikes. And I do think we need to out-grow our kleptocracy to replace it with a new decentralized system.
But I also strongly believe that while we plan for our future, we must simultaneously steer the present. I think we must maximize our participation in the community and political process in hopes of reclaiming it. It is the only way to change how our government spends its big money funding the status quo, while supposedly working on our behalf. If and when we out-grow our current government, whatever system we replace it with will hopefully embody the principles we establish and fight for right now within the current governing paradigm.
Reclaiming democratic freedom is far from included in your taxes…it takes real effort and real people power. It means…
Informing yourself on important issues from many perspectives
Voting in every election you can, and unelecting legislators who don’t represent you
Frequently lobbying your elected representatives
And even organizing groups in your community
No matter what system of human relationships rules your land, is it not your duty to help ensure it hears each of our voices?
There is a concept largely associated with the military-industrial complex known as the iron triangle. It describes the trading of economic and human resources between interest groups and the government to perpetuate and continually expand the industry. This technique is not just used by the military, but is replicated by many different industries. I argue that one of the primary starting points for these endless cycles is the electoral support in the form of campaign contributions. So if we target this part of the formula, perhaps we will finally be able to make progress in pushing some of these industries back.
I’ve learned from 20 years of experience as an activist that the U.S. House and Senate, and therefore our country, move extremely slow on most issues. The biggest corporate interests sponsor candidates on both sides of the aisle, with some industries supporting red a bit more than blue, but both sides of the duopoly are generally corrupt and co-opted. There are a few brilliant exceptions of course, but they are vastly outnumbered.
Many citizens have fought for DECADES trying to fix issues which are NO-BRAINERS when faced with the facts, so we don’t even get to the point of discussing the underlying problems of the crony capitalism running our system. I want to emphasize that we might have a chance at accomplishing the obvious steps, and then the even more difficult steps, by first cutting our legislative bodies free from their addiction to corporate purse strings. In addition to greatly helping all activist efforts, this could also to improve Congressional oversight over the top secret parts of our government…thereby improving OUR oversight over those private parts.
The US Senate and the House of Representatives are designed to most directly represent we the people. But members of Congress spend a great deal of their time trying to raise money for future or current campaigns, which could be spent legislating. These bodies have been perversely corrupted by trends like the over 12,000 registered lobbyists who spent over $3.5 Billion in 2010. We see bills defeated and passed by politicians who are loyal to their purse strings over their values and sense of equality and justice…usually more concerned about doing what is right for their careers instead of their constituents.
Between November 2008…and Sept. 30, 2009, the financial industry…has given $48.3 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress and their leadership political action committees…
…The 94 members of the two finance committees have received $16.9 million overall. The top 10 committee recipients include the Democratic chairmen: Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.); and the ranking Republicans on the committees: Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Rep. Spencer Bachus (Ala.).
Even without the Citizens United case, the standard behavior inside the beltway disgusts me. Like corporations, too many politicians follow their bottom-lines, which generally translate to the needs of their biggest corporate sponsors. It is one thing to make compromises while bills are being crafted and written, but the way politicians trade votes on various unrelated legislation seems backwards to me.
Why wouldn’t our representatives vote on a bill-by-bill basis, based on whether a bill is wise and just?
Why would we want our representatives to vote for bills any differently than their actual positions on the given issue? The political capital that trumps all in my book, is voting and leading from the heart, backed by the facts. That is perhaps the best we can ask of any politician.
What Do Clean Elections Look Like?
One of the secrets in all aspects of life is to envision the swish, before making the shot. There are many different types of reforms promoted, so I’ll do my best to provide a quick road map of the more popular paths towards various levels of reform.
While I focus here on the national level, most of these issues are applicable at each state’s level. Even though most state legislative bodies are also filled with corporate money, fighting for campaign finance reform in individual states is also required to make the whole country more representative of its citizens.
Improvement Set #1: Adding Sunlight (Transparency)
While I am not personally positive what model will work the best if implemented, I do think we desperately need some serious, systemic reform of campaign financing and I do like the Clean Elections/Clean Money model. If enacted, voters could also essentially boycott candidates who do not use public financing.
Since this is such an important issue, there are many groups working on it which you can check out. A few include:
So please sign up for national and local groups which focus on this issue to stay informed and take action when needed.
Billionaires and mega-corporations larger than most countries often donate a fraction of their profits to charities to improve their image for public relations. But very rarely does that generosity counter-balance the vast damage and inequity caused by their profit-maximizing over the years, decades, or centuries. Similarly, I feel we’ve reached a point where the vast majority of signed legislation benefits the Corporate-Industrial Complex, and the average citizen only gets a tiny charitable kick-back in benefits…for political public relations.
Strengthening the citizen representation in Congress and state legislatures with fundamental campaign finance reform could be the most vital step in bringing back our beautiful republic to replace our current plutocracy. So please use your voice to its maximum potential, in whatever way you are most creative, and consider making clean elections one of the big issues in the 2012 elections.
Thank YOU for listening, and participating in the Wiki World Order!
Robin Fox, lady in white, is the communications chair for the Floyd County (Georgia) Democratic Party and a seventh grade science teacher
Next to her was Andrew Giordano, a victim hurt by a couple of the policies being fixed by this bill
Then Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) got totals of $67,475 from Bank of America (including their purchase of MBNA Corp), and $29,650 from Barclays, and $16,125 from AIG, with a grand total of $159,575 from all highlighted contributors, from 2003-2008
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) got totals of $45,500 from JP Morgan Chase, $35,800 from Credit Suisse, and $19,000 from H&R Block, with a grand total of $115,900 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) only got totals of $38,000 from CME Group, $24,000 from the American Bankers Association, and $20,330 from Wells Fargo, with a grand total of $96,330 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) got totals of $37,350 from JP Morgan Chase, $34,900 from Goldman Sachs, $29,399 from Bank of America, with a grand total of $326,699 from all highlighted contributors , from 2005-2010
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) got totals of $50,000 from CME Group, $30,000 from UBS, and $30,000 from Wells Fargo, with a grand total of $246,100 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) got totals of $47,600 from NYSE Group, $35,050 from Bank of New York Mellon, and $34,250 from CME Group, with a grand total of $474,000 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) got totals of $66,850 from JP Morgan Chase, $50,300 from Goldman Sachs, $45,600 from Fidelity Investments, with a grand total of $221,250 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC) got totals of $33,250 from Bank of America, $26,500 from the American Bankers Association, and $20,500 from American Express, with a grand total of $214,972 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) only got totals of $8,500 from Fannie Mae, $3,000 from the American Bankers Association, and $3,000 from Morgan Stanley, with a grand total of only $19,900 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) got totals of $111,100 from Citigroup, $93,100 from the Royal Bank of Scotland, and $87,700 from AIG, with a grand total of $885,400! from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) got totals of $44,950 from Bank of America, $44,650 from Citigroup, $35,400 from American Express, with a grand total of $392,850 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) got totals of $105,050 from Fidelity Investments, $49,000 from CME Group, and $47,000 from Bank of America, with a grand total of $581,800! from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) got totals of $25,119 from QC Holdings, $25,000 from the American Bankers Association, and $24,000 from Bank of America, with a grand total of $297,819 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) only got totals of $26,000 from CME Group, $15,700 from QC Holdings, and $14,500 from Citigroup, with a grand total of $82,200 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) got totals of $65,800 from JP Morgan Chase, $31,000 from UBS, and $30,000 from the American Bankers Association, with a grand total of $279,150 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010 (05-06, 07-08, 09-10)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) got totals of $67,095 from JP Morgan Chase, $31,500 from H&R Block, and $27,000 from Capital One, with a grand total of $341,295 from all highlighted contributors, from 2005-2010
Appendix B: Issues I Care About Which Might Benefit From Clean Elections
I think if we had serious campaign finance reform, we’d have a much better shot at progress in issues I care about like…
Ending ALL of the illegitimate wars around the world, for the sake of all the victims of these wars, and deconstructing the majority of the military-industrial complex
Ending the Patriot Act, rendition, torture, and similar Constitution shredding policies
Ending the War On Drugs which among other things, imprisons far too many citizens and keeps minorities disproportionally disenfranchised and oppressed, a modern incarnation of the old Jim Crow laws
Curbing large-scale pollution and using alternative energies and overunity energies to end our dependence on oil and coal…using solutions that DO NOT try to solve the problem by creating new legal Ponzi schemes to keep the profit-maximizers happy
Creating a true public option to provide all citizens with universal health care, and supporting not-for-profit private health care options (see episode 4 on social businesses)
Protecting farmers from the Monsanto food paradigm
Basic animal rights to prohibit various forms of large-scale and legal torture
Attaining full and equal legal rights for all citizens of all sexual orientations and identities
Appendix C: Episode Music – Clean Elections Fight Corporate Erections
Chances are, that by now you’ve heard of the concept of “Net Neutrality“. It basically means that everyone connected to the internet should have equal access to all web sites on the internet. Right now, we are quite dependent on the internet as a society, and can currently find infinitely unique sources of information. But the big telecommunications players want to change that, just as they did with radio waves and televisions decades ago.
In the future, will you be able to rely on broadcasting your voice via universally public lanes? Will you be able to afford getting your voice heard through mainstream toll roads? We must continue to fight to maintain our net’s neutrality, and we have recently seen threats like the big Google-Verizon deal. So if you like cat videos, and you haven’t already, please go to SaveTheInternet.com NOW to sign their petition, and call your representatives in Congress to tell them to protect net neutrality.
When the internet was invented, everyone fell flat on their face they were so thrilled and the world began to do business in a different way. Now both President Bush’s Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, who I greatly respect, and President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence Admiral Blair, who I greatly respect, have labeled cybersecurity perpetrated through the internet as the number one national hazard of attack on the homeland…. So I mean it really almost makes you ask the question, “Would it have been better if we had never invented the internet, and had to use paper and pencil or whatever?” – and that’s a stupid thing to say, but it has genuine consequence. – Jay Rockefeller on CSPAN
There are some basic threats parroted by political leaders to justify centralizing command for “cybersecurity,” including claims like…
#1. Common email spam and computer viruses are a significant problem. But I argue these issues are inherit in our free internet and we will continue to combat them by downloading software patches and spam filters as needed.
#2. Hackers (or cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists, or cyber-criminals), foreign or domestic, will continue trying to hack into publicly web-accessible banking systems and the Open Government Initiative, Gov 2.0, where we see more government forms and services going online. But I argue this does not justify changing how the rest of the internet works…those services are responsible for their own security if they wish to interact on the public internet. Furthermore, as well-known computer security and cryptography expert Bruce Schneier says, “in the cryptography world, we consider open source necessary for good security; we have for decades…. For us, open source isn’t just a business model; it’s smart engineering practice.”
#3. Hackers might hack into our country’s power grid and bring down large swaths of our access to electricity and other core infrastructure. But I argue just as with highly sensitive military systems and top secret information, there is no reason that these systems should be connected to the public internet if they are so vulnerable. Such systems should be on completely separate networks using Open Source security solutions, and should not need to infringe on the free internet.
Cyber war is going on in some sense right now. … And we need this capacity in a time of war. We need the capacity for the president to say, Internet service provider, we’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country, or we’ve got to put a patch on this part of it. The president will never take over — the government should never take over the Internet. Listen, we’ve consulted, Senator Collins and I, who are proposing this bill, with civil liberties and privacy experts. This is a matter of national security. A cyber attack on America can do as much or more damage today by incapacitating our banks, our communications, our finance, our transportation, as a conventional war attack. And the president, in catastrophic cases — not going to do it every day, not going to take it over. So I say to my friends on the Internet, relax…(LAUGHTER)… take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country. Right now, China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have that here, too. – Joseph Lieberman on CNN, 6/20/2010
So instead of keeping critical and “vulnerable” infrastructure systems off the public internet, the solution being promoted is to give the White House a kill-switch for the web (via the big Internet Service Providers). This may only apply to emergency situations, but we also know very well that such situations can be easily manufactured by rogue elements of the corporate-industrial complex (see Episode 3 of the Wiki World Order report on False Flag attacks). It is also ridiculously difficult to transparently prove the source of sophisticated cyber attacks, so today’s cyber emergency situations can be easily manipulated.
Surely, as internet users we should keep educating each other to stay safe online, and to some extent our government will always need to spend resources on cyber defenses (ideally in fully open source processes). But similar to the War on Terror and “defensive” biological weapons research, we cannot fuel industries for yet another arms race. We do not want to design offensive cyber-weapons to be used preemptively against other countries or groups (as it appears we already are). We do not want such programs in the hands of secretive organizations like the National Security Agency. We must instead use more of our resources to work towards resolving the root causes for which such terrorism is a symptom.
Sure, very few bills will end up passing right now, so late in this session. But on September 21st, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Reuters that the draft bill of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act is “something that we hope to be able to pass before the end of the year, if we can.” So whether you like online news, games, sitcoms, soap operas, sports, cat videos, or researching the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group…your free access is at risk.
And remember, last year the Patriot Act was renewed under President Obama and we are still LOSING the fight to restore our Constitution and non-digital rights. So please tell your representatives in Congress to reject the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act and help defend against recent attacks on net neutrality. Tell them we should instead move any vulnerable infrastructure systems to separate, secure networks based on open source security.
We must constantly defend our internet, because it is the single biggest threat to the establishment, the Corporate-Industrial Complex. And remember…
Every time you trade cyber-privacy for cybersecurity… the NSA kills a kitten video.
We now see Americans increasingly rebelling against the endless predictable crises promoted by the established left and right throughout this decade. Even the mainstream media has had to cover such transitions both parties must undergo.
Acknowledgment of the corruption found on both sides of the political aisle is one of the core concepts which amazing outlets like We Are Change, Infowars and the Corbett Report attempt to spread. I have always found the current two-party system completely inadequate for aggregating the will of the people. I have long adored the idea of having either more parties or no parties.
On larger issues, both parties give us the same results. On smaller manufactured issues, the polarizing effects of having primarily two extreme camps to choose from is hurting more than helping. The negative effects of such polarization also skyrocket when single ideologies are forced on all scenarios, instead of a more flexible case by case basis.
Fortunately the freedom movement has loud voices warning people not to follow any one ideology. So this is a humble request for everyone to keep pushing past the confines separating us, to keep finding increasingly targeted solutions to counter-offer those provided from the top-down system. Avoiding the following two pitfalls might help the movement hone our arguments and improve the messaging of our alternative analysis of deep politics.
More Government VS Less Government? No. Quality Over Quantity.
The first pitfall I see appeals to many of my good patriot friends who stand firmly behind slogans for “Less Government.” To my eyes and ears, such statements feel a bit counterproductive to our shared goals.
The concept of “Less Government” (or “More Government” for that matter) is vague enough to be co-opted by almost any harmful solution provided. This formula should also not be endlessly applied, and our libertarian friends sometimes follow this mantra far too blindly. Most importantly, the slogan implies that the size of government has a causalrelationship with its level of corruption or negative impact. Larger organizations of any type may have more room for bad apples to hide and prosper, but they also have potential for greater good as they grow, like Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. So I argue that our society’s policies and incentives, promoted by our manufactured culture, have far greater influence on the positive or negative nature of the impact of organizations (governmental or not).
With a smaller government than our current monstrosity, in a similarly apathetic political climate, it might be even easier for a given corporation to influence the government and its policies. At the same time, there is a real threat of “Big Government” when corporations can entrench entire departments. They are pro-actively using government agencies to directly enact their corporate agenda and creatively increase their government contracts and budgets in order to keep growing.
We saw this quite publicly during George W Bush’s years as the military-industrial puppet, when in that “small government” administration we saw corporate-owned departments strip themselves down as much as possible, completely disassembling any form of meaningful regulation over themselves. A fresh and painful example of this came to light with the documented failures of the Minerals Management Service to provide any meaningful oversight or regulation on British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig. But don’t worry, the department has been re-branded as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement so we should probably assume it’s all fixed. Our current, predictable “Great Recession” also could have been avoided or at least postponed if trillions of dollars in profit incentives had not been allowed to manifest in the first place as derivatives, sub-prime mortgages and other legal Ponzi schemes.
But if the incentives of our culture were shifted enough, and more procedures were made ~100% transparent to the public, we might be able to find some governmental G spot where the government actually reflects the public’s interest. This may be theoretical, but it should be nearly attainable, not even requiring a revolution but incremental changes in the correct direction. And isn’t this what we should be striving for: an ever more pure realization of those constitutional ideals inspiring us to believe in our remarkable republic, or democracy?
But this process must begin with all deliberate speed. The Tea Parties, initially started years ago by the Ron Paul rEVOLution, were recently co-opted and largely taken over by the GOP in 2009…at least as far as the mainstream eye can see. And I give props to the now very rare Tea Party candidates and their supporters who remain opposed to the GOP, and are willing to keep thinking outside of the mainstream box and trying new things…no matter how distasteful some of their select views may be to me.
On the other side, Democrats don’t seem to be promoting interesting candidates to vote FOR, and are settling in for classic fights for the lesser of two evils…despite ever present disapproval for congress and their utter failure to progress in the past two years. I need to see more liberal candidates to grow balls as big as those rare tea partiers, resisting the lame/moderate/useless Democratic party line…no matter how distasteful select views of theirs may be to me.
The causality implied between more government and bad government does not seem theoretically sound. With a truly responsible government, an increase in size could simultaneously increase citizen freedoms. We must look at the results of our government’s efforts, and its degree of transparency, in order to judge it. We need to focus on uprooting the incentives for corruption in government, perhaps starting with campaign finance reform and revolving door protections, instead of just saying we want to change its size. A wise woman once told me it is not really the size of your government that matters, it’s all about how you use it.
The Capitalism VS Socialism Paradigm
This paradigm is even more polarizing, and I consider it another ridiculous pitfall. Capitalism and socialism often represent the only two options offered to align with, but we don’t even consider trying to come up with any new forms of national economic or governmental organization. Case by case, those rooting for capitalism might tend to dismiss socialist solutions, and vice versa…staying loyal to their dominant ideology. But as humans we sometimes get trapped into acting like these ideologies are some mythical unified theory.
How many “socialized” or “nationalized” services and industries does the public generally approves of? I think of “free” government services like the Highway System, Federal Waterways, National Park Service, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Bureau of Prisons, Census Bureau, Social Security, Small Business Administrations and of course, THE MILITARY and the services for veterans. And how many “capitalist” services does the public generally approve of? And are we the people currently healthy and happy with the choices provided for necessities like our food, housing, health care and energy?
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes – despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue.
The study showed that 28% of foreign companies and 25% of U.S. corporations with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales paid no federal income taxes in 2005. Those companies totaled a combined $372 billion in sales for the largest foreign companies and $1.1 trillion in revenue for the biggest U.S. companies.
I strongly oppose any Bush-style income tax cuts which worsen our wealthdisparities. But I do like the idea of taxes being collected from corporations where profits are created from business models, instead of collecting from a laborer’s wages. There are also many who argue that our income tax of last 100 years is even unconsititutional, and I think this is a topic worth considering. For more info on this, you might start your research by watching Aaron Russo’s 2006 film, America: Freedom to Fascism.
The point of terms like ‘crony capitalism’ or ‘predatory capitalism’ is to point out just how far we are from the pure idealized form of capitalism touted by talking heads, or even Adam Smith. It seems the massive mutant capitalist corporations have become so efficient at their business that they went ahead and took over our governments for us, saving us the trouble of regulating those companies. But if we reign in the corporate-industrial complex soon, and we force our government to start buying solar panels instead of bombs, we will encourage the growth and development of less destructive markets.
Unfortunately these ‘ism’s may be false options on yet another level. Because for decades now, our country might best be defined as fascist. This is rooted in the comprehensive corporate influence on the most important functions of government, and controlling both candidates in a single-party state. It might also be defined as a plutocracy (or corpocracy, or corporatocracy) — whatever it is, it has now emerged quite clearly.
Our form of capitalism has been incentivized by selfish wealth maximization without regard to externalities, while providing amazing technological advances with potential for enormous benefits for our species in the long run. But the jury is still out due to our pollution, loss of biodiversity, food mono-cultures, unregulated GMOs, and nuclear and biological weapons industries. But at least we’ve got record-high wealth disparities.
The final problem I have with these false options is that capitalism and socialism don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. As Noam Chomsky says, there is no reason businesses cannot be managed democratically, controlled by their workers and community, and compete with other businesses managed the same way and others. But there are other ways to improve the capitalism formula without even giving up the typical management hierarchies of today’s world.
Social Businesses and Nu Capitalism
One of my dad’s core mantras I’ve adopted is about looking for the right questions to ask. Despite Chomsky’s blind spots and/or self-censoring on select topics he is of course brilliant and inspiring, and he is a relatively early influence on my world view. I really like his approach on this (click here for video):
“We don’t have capitalism, it’s nothing remotely like it. We have some various varieties of state capitalism, including the USSR. That was one variety of state capitalism, was based on wage labor, on management control, central coordination of production. In fact its’ in many ways very much like corporate capitalism. It’s just a different kind of organization.
So of the various kinds of state capitalism that are around, which are the best? I don’t honestly think that’s the kind of question we should be asking. Suppose you’re in the 18th century. Should you be asking, ‘Which is the best kind of feudalism?’ I mean that’s all it was. So which is the best kind of feudalism, and slavery, and monarchy and so on and so forth. It just wasn’t the right question. I mean the right question is, ‘Is there something better?’ Like say, parliamentary democracy. Even though there were no examples of it. There were seeds of it, but no functioning examples. I mean seeds of had it been developed and usually crushed, as in England, but these were legitimate struggles. And you know, they succeeded. I mean by now you have parliamentary democracies, which aren’t fantastic but are better than feudalism.” – The World: The Noam Chomsky Sessions
So suppose you’re in the 21st century, what is the best kind of capitalism? What is the best kind of socialism? Is capitalism better than socialism, or vice versa? Why are we limited to these options?
Capitalism is very flexible, and we must stop supporting large-scale businesses which make themselves legally bound to maximize profits for shareholders no matter the side-effects. We must support businesses which try to maximize benefits for alldimensions of human life. But customers and investors must take more initiative to carefully vote daily with their dollars for social-benefit-maximizing businesses which show enough conscience to mitigate their externalities while providing the world beneficial products and services.
In the “Nu Capitalism” paradigm, the companies which provide the most net social benefit will also be the most profitable. Let me repeat that. In the “Nu Capitalism” paradigm, the companies which provide the most net social benefit WILL ALSO BE THE MOST PROFITABLE.
…a microfinance organization and community development bank … that makes small loans (known as microcredit or “grameencredit”) to the impoverished without requiring collateral. … The system of this bank is based on the idea that the poor have skills that are under-utilized. A group-based credit approach is applied which utilizes the peer-pressure within the group to ensure the borrowers follow through and use caution in conducting their financial affairs with strict discipline, ensuring repayment eventually and allowing the borrowers to develop good credit standing.
I will discuss microcredit more in a future episode on why and how we should End The Federal Reserve. And I strongly recommend you explore this concept and this beautiful human much more, but here is a quick excerpt to whet your appetite:
B Corporation (B Labs) is a leading firm to certify businesses adhering to enough social business principles. According to their web site, over 300 companies have become certified with a branded B Corporation status since 2006, including one I always see at the store named Seventh Generation. The 315 businesses represent $1.5 billion in revenues and 54 industries.
Dollar votes are currently the most powerful form of voting we have, far better than false choice A or B every 2 to 4 years. Quick resources of information needed to educate our daily decisions will be in higher demand, like the The Better World Handbook and a very intriguing iPhone App called the GoodGuide. The GoodGuide app takes advantage of the Universal Product Code system and allows you to scan product barcodes at the store with your iPhone’s REGULAR CAMERA (not the special barcode scanner) and pulls up a quick rating of the product and the company that makes it. It gives four scores for each product scanned: Health, Environment, Society, and an Overall Rating, plus more detailed breakdowns if you’re interested. It of course doesn’t have every product in the world rated yet, but the app is free and you can suggest new items to be rated if you don’t find them in there.
GoodGuide is also certified as a B Corporation, but just like with food, we must perpetually fight to ensure product labeling is as honest, accurate and informative as possible. This is absolutely essential. There is also a separate problem of people buying all the totally useless sh*t they don’t need, whether or not it is made by a good company in a good way. We call this “trinket capitalism.”
So tools like the GoodGuide are already helping consumers take charge of their purchasing powers to make capitalism more consciously democratic. But at the same time, wise progressive businesses will find more ways of clearly posting (and lying about) how good their products are for the health of your mind, body, community, society and world. Already, the battle is on for proper labeling of organic or non-GMO foods. But companies can, and hopefully will, also start directly labeling their products with something like their GoodGuide scores or B Corporation ratings to make it easier for consumers to choose their products over others.
Used alone, neither left nor right, neither more nor less government, neither capitalism nor socialism can save us. So let us please not choose our preferred solutions solely because they fit into one ideology or another. We need to rationally look at the situation and find the maximum good we can muster, no matter what ‘ism’ it implies.
Either ideology, taken to the extreme, can become quite a scary beast, so please don’t use them as your primary basis for every decision. We cannot be tempted to just vote with our party on every issue…are we voting for the lesser of two evils? Such ideologies are like many drugs, which can only be used safely in moderation.
‘Do you lean towards Capitalism or Socialism?’ – Nope, I’m mostly into Social Businism!
In this current economic transition, we need to replace a portion of the worthless trinket capitalism products and services, as well as industries of destruction, with social businesses. We must compete with the corporate-industrial complex, first targeting the industries vital to human life and well-being. With the proper public education via accurate product labeling and wider accessibility to healthier products, we can gradually shift to only pay for products made with our long-term interest in mind, instead of someone else’s bottom-line.
We absolutely need our key industries to start offering competitive Social Business options in the marketplace. There will also always be room for profit-maximizing businesses to coexist, but the decision between social businesses or purely profit-maximizing options would be in the hands of consumers. Simultaneously, we need efforts to upgrade labeling to help customers support healthier options for our minds, bodies, communities, societies and planet.
We can fight with our dollars NOW. We can buy products from Social Businesses NOW. We can start Social Businesses NOW. We can start converting our current employers into Social Businesses NOW. Why wait for Washington when we can make these moves ourselves?
In the 21st century, we the people of the world will do everything possible to ensure that companies which provide the most net benefit to the world WILL ALSO BE THE MOST PROFITABLE companies in the world.
Appendix A: My Personal Preferences for Nu Capitalism
For each area of our society I have listed, I will describe my best estimate for how our current system runs, followed by my current preference…the point to which I want to see us grow.
Judicial and Legislative Branches
Public, with some private non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing additional oversight
Public, with increased private NGOs providing additional oversight
Regulatory Agencies (for all types of industries)
Public, with some private NGOs providing additional oversight
Public, with increased private NGOs providing additional oversight
“DEFENSE”/MILITARY, Homeland Security
Public, with significant outsourcing to private profit maximizers
Public, but dramatically reduced, and no more contracting to private profiteers, and far greater transparency
Federal Bureau of Investigations, Immigration Enforcement, Bureau of Prisons
Public, with significant outsourcing to private profit maximizers
Public, but dramatically reduced, and no more contracting to private profiteers, and far greater transparency
Central Intelligence Agency
Public with private contracting, but also has significant secret budgets (and actions) for which we have NO oversight
Public, but completely REPLACE it with Public Open Source Intelligence with 100% transparency
Federal Reserve System
Quasi-Public (Dennis Kucinich: “No more federal than Federal Express”), with risks public and profits private
Public, but REPLACE with a publicly controlled, completely transparent system serving the needs of the other 90% of the world’s population
Highway System, Federal Waterways, National Park Service
Public, but always room for more transparency
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid
Public, but work on solving the root causes, work to change the systemic policies which intentionally keep low-income families down
Private, with some rare Social Business and Public Options
Private, but dominated by Social Business, kick started by the federal government switching as many purchases as possible over to renewable energy
Private, with some very rare Social Business options, and Public Option still in debate
Single-Payer Public Option, with other Private Options dominated by Social Businesses
Private, with increasing Social Business options
Private, but dominated by Social Businesses
Private, some limited Public Options for low-income families, plus the Quasi-Public cases like Freddie and Fannie with public risks and private profits
Private, but dominated by Social Businesses, with some limited Public Options for low-income families until unnecessary
Private with limited Public Options, and Social Businesses are now finally showing up more
Private, but dominated by Social Businesses, and vastly expanded Public Options
Public, with Private Options
Public with far greater funding but also reduced federal control of curriculum, plus Private Options dominated by Social Businesses
A Thought Experiment Ending with Transparency and Social Businesses
We can see Americans increasingly rebelling against both the establishment left and the right. Even the mainstream media has had to cover this aspect of the transitions which both political parties are going through during this decade of endless predictable crises.
Acknowledgment of the corruption found on both sides of the political aisle is one of the core concepts which amazing outlets like We Are Change, Infowars and the Corbett Report attempt to spread. I have always found the current two-party system completely inadequate for aggregating the will of the people, and have long adored the idea of either more parties or no parties. So I am very excited to see this reach an ever more conscious level of the national dialogue, but I want to tease the ball a few steps further to help expand the range of potential solutions we consider for upcoming debates.
Below is a more relaxed, long-brewing brainstorm on a couple of paradigms I think might also contribute to paralyzing, if not controlling or co-opting, our best courses of action. These could hypothetically be highlighted to help divide and conquer the masses.
In some cases, the polarizing effect of having primarily two extreme camps to choose from on sub-issues may be hurting more than helping. We also sometimes see the negative effects of such polarization skyrocket when single ideologies are be forced on all scenarios, instead of a more flexible case by case basis. Fortunately the movement has loud voices warning people not to follow any one ideology.
So this is a humble request for the movement to keep pushing past the confines separating us to keep finding increasingly targeted solutions to counter-offer those provided from the top-down system. The better we can hone our arguments and improve our messaging to newcomers to alternative analysis and deep politics.
More VS Less Government? Quality NOT Quantity.
This is a simpler example, and relates to many of my good patriot friends who stand firmly with slogans for “Less Government.” To my eyes or ears, such statements feel a bit counterproductive to our shared goals for a few reasons, but maybe it only irks me.
“Less Government” is vague enough to be co-opted by almost any harmful solution provided. It is also not a rule/ideology you can always follow, unless you’re an anarchist…but then your sign should probably read, “No Government.” This formula should not be endlessly applied, and our libertarian friends sometimes take this mantra too far too blindly.
But more importantly, it implies that the size of government has a causal relationship with its level of corruption or negative impact. In my book, this feels quite unfair.
Larger organizations of any type may have more room for bad apples to hide and prosper. But our society’s policies, manufactured culture and promoted incentives have a far greater influence the positive or negative nature of the impact of organizations (governmental or not).
In a similarly apathetic political climate, a given corporation might have even less trouble buying out a smaller government than our current monstrosity. At the same time, there is a real threat of “Big Government” when corporations can entrench departments and pro-actively using government to directly enact corporate agenda, find ways to increase their budgets to keep expanding their government cloaked work, as we saw more publicly during George W Bush’s military-industrial reign. In the same administration we saw other corporate owned departments strip themselves down as much as possible, completely disassembling any form of meaningful regulation over themselves.
Our current [predictable] economic bubble burst could have been avoided/postponed if trillions of dollars in profit incentives not been allowed to manifest in the first place as derivatives, sub-prime mortgages and other legal Ponzi schemes. That scale of money is not just a motive with a universal adapter on it, but also notably contributes to increasing the vast wealth disparity.
Along these lines, and somewhat ironically, many of those using the “Less Government” slogan might also likely be in favor improving/returning real banking regulations to once against prevent these abuses which the world people and economies are suffering. I assume that a ban on toxic financial products (or any other way to regulate them) would generally be interpreted as “More Government” on this scale.
But if the incentives of our culture were shifted enough, and procedures were made ~100% transparent to the public, we might be able to find some government G spot where the government reflects the public’s interest. This might be theoretical, but it should be nearly attainable, not even requiring a revolution but incremental changes in the correct direction for a change. And seems to be what we should be striving for…ever more pure realization of those ideals inspiring us as youth learning about our republic/democracy (sorry, still insufficient understanding of that paradigms).
The causality implied in this association between more government and bad government also does not seem theoretically sound. With a truly responsible government, an increase in its size could simultaneously increase citizen freedoms. In conclusion, I argue we need to focus on uprooting the incentives for corruption in government, perhaps via campaign finance reform and revolving door protections, instead of just saying we want to change the size. A wise woman once told me it is not really the size of your government that matters, it’s all about how you use it.
The Capitalism VS Socialism Paradigm
This is a case with much graver polarization, and it might be totally unnecessary. One of my dad’s core mantras is all about looking for the right questions to ask. Despite Chomsky’s blind spots or self-censoring on select topics, he is of course brilliant, inspiring and an early influence of mine. So I really like his approach on this here (click here for video).
“Suppose you’re in the 18th century. Should you be asking, ‘Which is the best kind of feudalism?’ I mean that’s all it was. So which is the best kind of feudalism, and slavery, and monarchy and so on and so forth. It just wasn’t the right question. I mean the right question is, ‘Is there something better?’ Like say, parliamentary democracy. Even though there were no examples of it. There were seeds of it, but no functioning examples. I mean seeds of had it been developed and usually crushed, as in England, but these were legitimate struggles. And you know, they succeeded. I mean by now you have parliamentary democracies, which aren’t fantastic but are better than feudalism.” – The World: The Noam Chomsky Sessions
Suppose you’re in the 21st century, what is the best kind of capitalism? The best socialism? Is capitalism better than socialism? What blend of the two would be best? Why are we limited to these questions?
Capitalism or socialism often represent the two main options offered to us in response to most problems, but we don’t even consider trying to come up with any new forms of national economic or governmental organization. Case by case, those rooting for capitalism might tend to dismiss socialist solutions, and vice versa, mostly to stay loyal to their dominant ideology. But as humans we sometimes get trapped into acting like these ideologies are the mythical unified theory of everything in physics, applying it to every aspect of society.
An occasionally mentioned aspect to the discussion is how many ‘socialized’/nationalized services and industries, most people have long approved of like THE MILITARY, Highway System, Federal Waterways, FBI, Bureau of Prisons, Census Bureau, National Park Service, Social Security and all the other free services provided by the executive and legislative branches. So it seems we could have been considered a part-capitalist, part-socialist country for decades. Even better are the number of recent cases we see where the profits privatized while the risks a nationalized, like the painful bank bailouts and Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
The point of terms like ‘crony capitalism,’ is to point out just how far we are from the pure idealized form touted by talking heads. In fact, it seems the bigger mutant capitalist corporations have become so efficient at their business that they went ahead and took over our government, saving us the trouble of regulating them. But if we reign the beast in soon, we may yet have a chance to replace weapons research budgets by incentivizing less harmful technologies across the board.
It is also bizarre that there is such passion for either of these economic systems, as we have seen examples of both producing failed states when inappropriately implemented…bringing us back my focus on quality over quantity. Our capitalist experiment has been going for just a few hundred years, and this current incarnation of crazed crony-capitalism has clearly dominated at least the past century. It seems clear the technological advances provided by our capitalism incentivized by wealth has potential for enormous net benefits for our species in the long run…but the judge is still out, between our food mono-cultures, biodiversity, GMOs, nuclear and biological weapons.
Another large unmentioned issue when debating socialist versus capitalist solutions is the source of the taxes. An interesting thought experiment is to first ask some one if they would favor socializing some service, perhaps health care. Then ask them if they would still be opposed to it if typical citizens once again did not pay any income tax, while the Fortune 500 moves out of the Cayman Islands to start correcting the record wealth disparities. The nature of who or where the finances come from to run all nationalized services should be a critically important factor in what people think is worth paying for.
The final problem I have with these false options is that they don’t seem to be completely mutually exclusive. As Chomsky says later in the video above, there is no reason businesses cannot be managed democratically controlled by their workers and community, and compete with other businesses managed the same way and others. But there are other ways to improve the capitalism formula without giving up the typical management hierarchy of today.
Capitalism doesn’t say businesses must compete by maximizing-profits, which is very selfish and short-sighted, that’s just how we’ve been playing. If more large-scale businesses stop going public to make them legally bound to maximize profits for shareholders, they will be free to be the best business they can be across all dimensions which humans care about.
If customers and investors take more initiative to carefully vote daily with their dollars for social-benefit-maximizing businesses, which show enough conscience to mitigate their externalities while provide the world beneficial products and services. Dollar votes are currently the most powerful form of voting we have, far better than the false choice A or B every 4 years. More resources for the information required to educate these daily decisions are likely to emerge, like The Better World Handbook. But this social-benefit-maximizing business model is a marvelous idea champions by Muhammad Yunus, the Social Business. I strongly recommend you explore this concept and this man more, here is an except to wet your appetite:
His microcredit banks have brought millions out of poverty in Bangladesh over the past four decades — side-note: this should theoretically be a plus for eugenicists because population naturally stabilizes as a country develops, and this may be the most natural, positive and creative method being successfully tried. A few test-runs of similar microcredit banks are finally being started up in America.
According to the web site of B Corporation, a leading certification firm to certify businesses adhering to enough of these kinds of social business principles, over 300 companies have become certified with a branded B Corporation status since 2006, including Seventh Generation. The 300 represent $1.1 billion in revenues, 54 industries, and $750k in annual savings.
There is a parallel movement around the country to grant legal tax status to B Corporations which one assumes will offer various benefits back to these businesses. My home state of Maryland signed the nation’s first Benefit Corporation legislation on April 13th and Vermont passed it on May 19th, 2010. Whether or not their state is ready for it yet, businesses can start taking a confidential survey NOW to learn what areas they need improvement on, to work towards a longer-term goal of becoming fully certified.
Full disclosure: my very cool 9-5 work, Rescue Social Change Group, based in San Diego, is already looking into this process and looks forward to becoming certified without having to alter our existing small social business model infused from the beginning. What can I say other than, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
Conclusions: Transparency and Social Businesses
Alone, neither left nor right, neither more nor less government, neither capitalism nor socialism can save us. So let us please not choose our preferred solutions solely because they fit into one ideology or another. Rationally look at the situation and find the longest-term good we can muster no matter what ‘ism’ it implies.
In place of protesting for less (or more) government, I would protest for transparent government. Any sized government can work for its people if they have information and access. What jerks in Congress can forever avoid voting for bills if they are specifically honed only on increasing transparency? As a general note, shorter bills in Congress may generally help both these issues and finding more worth-while common ground. Campaign finance reform is quite possibly the other most serious roadblock to real control over our own government.
‘Do you lean towards Capitalism or Socialism?’ – Maybe I’m into Social Businism!
Either ideology, taken to the extreme, becomes quite a scary beast, so please don’t use them as the primary basis for every decision. It’s just like being tempted to just vote down your party-line…what does that party stand for, exactly…and as related to a specific modern-day issue?
In this next economy transition, we could try to replace a portion of the 100% worthless trinket capitalism products and services with social businesses to compete on a few fronts with the corporate-industrial complex, targeting first the industries vital to human life an well-being. With the proper public education, product labeling and accessibility, we can gradually shift to only pay for products made with our long-term interest in mind, instead of someone else’s short-term bottom-line.
And it should turn out that plenty of industries and niche markets do not need to ditch their profit-maximizing models. Hopefully many key industries will end up dominated by social businesses and see a rebirth to provide options healthier for us, our neighbors and our planet. There will also always be room for profit-maximizing businesses to coexist even after this, but that decision would be in the hands of those markets.
So if enough people like this, it is one possible direction we could try to steer towards while we’re fighting the smaller battles: the widespread conversions and start-ups of real Social Businesses, followed up by communities supporting them simply with our patronage.
Why wait for Washington when we can make these moves ourselves?
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, until just a few months ago he was a leader of the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, the oldest institution uniting Europe since 1949, now representing 47 countries. He obtained his postgraduate qualifications in internal medicine and pneumology, in public health, social medicine, hygiene and environmental medicine in Germany and further training in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University.
After resigning he immediately joined the fraud investigation regarding the Swine Flu Panic of ’09, he pushed it to the Council, and received their consensus in confirming various acts of corruption. In part, this must be due to the dozens of independent journalists around the world who have been collecting information since the months before the flu even started. Their flags of interest were raised by the FEMA/military preparations for pandemics and/or the growing billions of dollars of vaccine stockpiles approaching their expiration date.
We must encourage more of this kind of Revolving Door Reversal, where people leave to fight for justice, instead of succumbing to the greedy gravitation towards corporations. Push 100% for rational discussion and debate on any topic upon leaving, as we have been at a loss for checks and balances. Perhaps this can be the more typical Revolving Door of the next century, thank you Dr. Wodarg!
Key Points Now Officially Confirmed: – World Health Organization (WHO) drastically changed the definition of “pandemic” – Mass produced vaccine was not nearly adequately tested, and used adjuvants with unknown side-effects – Officials received alternate vaccines without adjuvants – Vaccines were patented, so supply and profits bottle-necked through a few big Pharma giants. He argues the better alternative is to allow no patents and share the process everywhere to enable local production. – Some WHO officials were paid off to help promote the panic – Poland, France and Germany were right not to take the vaccine – Japanese already bought the vaccines, but now know, and aren’t sure whether to administer them – One of his stated goals in pushing for this justice is to repair the WHO and restore its honor and trust with the world’s people
Full Interview from Feb 3rd. It’s in 3 parts, 30 minutes total: …please start with 5 minutes if you’re nervous, and hopefully you’ll be interested
There are layers of scandals i will not go into detail on, but each of the pharmaceutical companies making the vaccines have an offense track record to be chosen again by WHO. There was lots of obvious media to prepare our minds to accept martial law, quarantines and forced inoculations as the logical reactions to such a pandemic.
My foreknowledge of almost all of this fraud since the beginning, because Alex Jones/ Prison Planet/ Infowars is ONE OF my sources for news…
For two years, I have learned a lot from watching nearly every episode of Rachel Maddow, The Daily Show, Colbert Nation, many Democracy Now and Infowars broadcasts. A few times a month, Infowars will break a story they have received from listeners, then verified, by the over 3 million awakening people a week between radio, internet broadcast and people re-post on YouTube, etc. Then two or three weeks later the online buzz from inescapable facts covered by alternative media forces the information into the mainstream. We are often validated again by being able to accurately predict the narrative for the reaction to these facts, as presented in the mainstream media. Once you get the feel of their narratives, you’ll give the movie three thumbs down for predictability and unnecessary gore.
Thus watching the frequency of accurate analysis in my experience, the Infowars method is far more historically accurate for past, present and future events that the top-down media outlets, though the rest of those shows aren’t too terrible, they have topic limits. Alex Jones has evolving into more of a hub for this kind of information, and not some unilateral source. The bigger it gets, the more it becomes like a Wiki style media, collaborating with a broad variety of people with shared root concerns. And yes he can have a shock-style presentation sometimes, but given the gravity of his content i can rarely blame him for his passion. One should compensate for the bias behind any presentation of information, and even without any spin, the facts scream for themselves.
Here is a fairly clear prediction aired 11 months ago on the Alex Jones show…ONE MONTH before the flu startedand then hit the headlines. Dr. Rebecca Carley explains how she was already watching these companies because of the millions of vaccines about to expire. They also discuss some of the potential directions the conspirators could go with a consciously initiated pandemic, but there is more modern eugenics background needed to accept the possibility of those more hypothetical parts of their predictions. We can certainly now prove the basic fraud confirmed the Council of Europe this week.
It looks like her license was revoked because people thought she was crazy, largely due to her vocal anti-vaccination position and trauma from her child’s vaccine reactions, “Dr. Labins also stated that the Respondent believes that the government is interested in pursuing all persons who are opposed to vaccinating children, which is part of a global government plot in collusion with the drug industry.” It is therefore ironic that almost a year after making these predictions she should be at least partially vindicated for her fears of vaccine conspiracies. She also charged fear of being discriminated against for her vaccine beliefs, which sounds like a discriminatory charge. I have not delved to her history, found this side-note interesting, and it does little to invalidate her now confirmed prediction in my mind.
Infowardocs.org also has over 200 articles chronicled, largely from those first months of Swine Flu Panic ’09:
And after watching media narratives and coverage trends for years, these are some more interesting articles which i felt were mentally preparing me/us for some kind of pandemic (dangerous or not) coming soon to a city near you…
BloombergFeb 10, 2009 – Panasonic Sends Workers’ Families Home on Flu Risk – Panasonic Corp. has instructed Japanese workers assigned to parts of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America to send family members back to Japan because of the risk of outbreaks of new influenza strains, Nikkei English News said, without citing anyone. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aXjbg7pIcXo4&refer=japan
BloombergFeb 24, 2009 – Baxter Sent Bird Flu Virus to European Labs by Error – The contamination was discovered when ferrets at a laboratory in the Czech Republic died after being inoculated with vaccine made from the samples early this month – experts later explain how this could not possibly be an accident with much of the Biosafety Level 3 standards which were supposedly in place http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I
Scientific AmericanApril 2009 – Our Sick Farms, Our Infected Food – Congress and the FDA must upend the nation’s agricultural policies to keep its food supply safe – Graphic shows pigs, and explains how dirty farms can give humans diseases. Note that to make it in this issue, this was written before the outbreak. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sick-farms-infected-food
CNNApr 22, 2009 – (Two days beforethe virus news breaks) 3 virus vials missing from Fort Detrick, MD – In 97 percent of cases, humans with the virus suffer flu-like symptoms, but it can be deadly in about 1 out of 100 cases, according to Caree Vander Linden, a spokeswoman for the Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/missing.virus.sample/index.html
You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the original content of this website. If you like, please attribute legal copies of this work to WikiWorldOrder.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed.