Edgar Morin, the great French thinker, a person who, in this time of forgetting and false egalitarianism, still dares to call himself an intellectual says that the job of his particular caste is:
"to lay the fundamental and universal problems that today are completely hidden and which experts of specialized intelligence are unable to imagine"
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Memory and Accountability
Now that the double-dip recession is apparently a reality, is Obama and his base going to pretend that no one saw it coming and that nothing else could have really been done?
Are they going to act as if two quite well-known and articulate Nobels in Economics (Krugman and Stiglitz) weren't shouting from the rooftops that this is exactly what would happen if, in a moment when he had a full mandate for sweeping change from the American people, Obama were to (as he did) tailor his stimulus program to the liking of a Republican opposition that was never going to give him votes by making it both a) smaller than it needed to be b) and more dependent than is should have been on stimulus-inefficient tax cuts rather than infrastructure spending?
My guess is that the spin is already underway and that large numbers of the Obama base will swallow without thinking twice.
This is the nature of American public discourse in our age. No history and, therefore no accountability.
William Kristol and the Neo-cons, criminally wrong on everything (in a very Nuremburg trials kind of way) continue on their merry way, pronouncing on foreign policy on Network TV as often as they please with absolutely no fear of having rotten fruit or eggs thrown in their face.
In Zombie nation we have long-since internalized the golden rule: to be serious and grown-up is to never question those those above you in the power hierarchy.
Are they going to act as if two quite well-known and articulate Nobels in Economics (Krugman and Stiglitz) weren't shouting from the rooftops that this is exactly what would happen if, in a moment when he had a full mandate for sweeping change from the American people, Obama were to (as he did) tailor his stimulus program to the liking of a Republican opposition that was never going to give him votes by making it both a) smaller than it needed to be b) and more dependent than is should have been on stimulus-inefficient tax cuts rather than infrastructure spending?
My guess is that the spin is already underway and that large numbers of the Obama base will swallow without thinking twice.
This is the nature of American public discourse in our age. No history and, therefore no accountability.
William Kristol and the Neo-cons, criminally wrong on everything (in a very Nuremburg trials kind of way) continue on their merry way, pronouncing on foreign policy on Network TV as often as they please with absolutely no fear of having rotten fruit or eggs thrown in their face.
In Zombie nation we have long-since internalized the golden rule: to be serious and grown-up is to never question those those above you in the power hierarchy.
It's not coming, it's Here
...if and (this is a big if) you want to let yourself see it.
Birth of the National Security State
By Philip Giraldi 10/04/2010
It is not far fetched to speculate that the United States has, over the past ten years, been sliding into a form of authoritarianism that retains only some aspects of the constitution and a limited rule of law. America's president can, for example, commit soldiers to combat overseas without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war by congress while it is quite possible to be detained by the authorities and locked up without any prospect of trial or opportunity to defend oneself. The government even believes it can kill American citizens based only on suspicion. I prefer to think of this transformation as the National Security State because it rests on a popular consensus that liberties must be sacrificed in exchange for greater public safety from various threats, international terrorism being the most prominent. It might just as well be called the National Warfare State as it also requires constant conflict to justify its existence.
Three elements are necessary for the creation of a National Security State. First, there must be a narrative that can be sold to the public justifying the transformation. Second, a system of laws and regulations must be created that enable the state to act with impunity and also to protect the government from challenges to its authority. Third, technology must be harnessed to enable the state to surreptitiously monitor and control the activities of its citizens. All of these elements have fallen into place over the past decade.
A recent example of abuse of authority by the government demonstrates how several of the key elements can come together. On September 24th, the Obama Administration declared that it would ask a federal court to block a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to the government's contention that it has the authority to assassinate American citizens overseas if they are suspected of involvement with a terrorist group. The White House has invoked the state secrets privilege, contending that vital national interests would be betrayed if the case were to proceed and further that the president has the authority to target anyone for death in time of war. The state secrets privilege is the ultimate weapon to avoid exposure of government wrongdoing. It has been used frequently by the Obama administration in spite of Obama-the-candidate's pledge that he would run an open and accountable government.
The ACLU case focused on the one US citizen known to be on the administration's assassination list, Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Now, by all accounts al-Awlaki is an unsavory character, involved with at least one extremist group in Yemen, but the evidence that he is an actual terrorist or that he has been closely involved with plotting terrorist attacks has not been made public. At this point, he appears to have been condemned to death without any due process and without any opportunity to defend himself. The Obama Administration abuse of the state secrets privilege in this case is little more than justifying the practice of extrajudicial murder at the whim of a government bureaucrat. It also assumes that the whole world is a battlefield without any declaration of war by congress. If all of that is so, al-Awlaki can be killed and so can any other American for any reason or no reason.
State secrets is only one weapon in the arsenal employed by the government to create a framework of regulation that permits the government to act with impunity. The Military Commission Act, which candidate Obama vowed to let expire, was renewed in 2009 with virtually no changes. Under the MCA, someone can be imprisoned indefinitely on suspicion that he or she has provided material support to terrorism. Material support is not defined and can be interpreted to mean nearly anything. If accused, right to a trial by peers does not apply as the detainee is subject to a military tribunal and habeas corpus is null and void. And how does the government determine if someone is a "terrorism supporter?" Through evidence derived from Patriot Act authorized National Security Letters, which the FBI can obtain without any judicial process whatsoever to look into the private lives of each and every citizen. Nearly 25,000 National Security Letters were issued in 2008 alone. When someone receives a letter demanding that information be provided to the authorities it is a felony to reveal to the subject of the investigation that he or she is being looked at.
The second key element in the National Security State is the media depiction of a threat that makes the public fearful and willing to sacrifice rights in exchange for security. This effort is aided and abetted by the government, which is the principal cheerleader for the fear mongering. In the al-Awlaki case the media obediently depicts the man as a terrorist, never challenging the established narrative so it makes it easier for the public to accept that he should be killed for reasons of public safety. Another recent initiative of the same sort is the narrative that there are numerous American Muslims who have been radicalized and might carry out terrorist acts. One might reasonably note that as there are possibly ten million Muslims in the US if that were true there would be hundreds of incidents occurring annually, possibly one or two a day. Where are they? Yet the government suggests that there is an "emerging" threat and the media buys into it hook line and sinker. The public is again scared into supporting the National Security State.
Finally, there is the technical ability to look into the private lives of each and every citizen, which is increasing exponentially as the technology is refined. The federal government is currently seeking legislation to enable it to monitor internet, blackberries, and social networking sites. The centers of most American citizens are criss-crossed by surveillance cameras, while "traffic control" cameras record automobile information, and cell phone and internet providers maintain complete records on calls and emails for up to a year. These are records that the government can access through the National Security Letters, without any judicial review. Cell phone system monitors are able to locate anyone with a phone turned on within a distance of three feet and whenever a call is made the location is recorded. This means if you attend an anti-war rally your participation might wind up in a security file. Much of this and other information is collected into data bases, together with public record material like driving license information, credit reports, and details of criminal and civil litigation. How much of the information is actually retained is anyone's guess, but it is safe to assume that it is all kept for some time and that government computers can retrieve it at will.
Having lived in Europe, I know that most of these intrusive technologies first appeared on that continent, where people accept a high level of state control, only to be picked up subsequently in the US. The British government is currently introducing legislation proposing that all wage and salary earners have their paychecks sent directly to the tax agencies for processing. The government's stated intention is to make sure that taxes are being collected, but Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service computers would also be alert to possible money laundering and terrorist connections, raising the fear level to justify the action. After processing, the British government would then pass whatever money remains on to the person who actually earned it. Scary, but it is perhaps something that will also be proposed in the US by a Joe Lieberman, John McCain or Lindsey Graham, all of whom have used fear of terrorism to justify curtailment of civil liberties and intrusion into areas once regarded as private. Or even by Barack Obama, who appears to believe that a benign big government provides a solution to whatever ails you and is already moving towards monitoring all financial transactions.
The only answer to the National Security State a demand on the part of US citizens to return to constitutionalism and a rule of law. The government should not be empowered to kill citizens extrajudicially, start wars of choice, detain suspects indefinitely and without charges, use state secrets claims to avoid scrutiny, and obtain private information without a warrant. It is difficult to imagine a return to normalcy under the best of circumstances, but congress is complicit in the process and will do nothing. Genuine change will only come about when we the people insist on it.
Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 19 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992, was designated as senior Agency officer for support at the Olympic Games, and served as official liaison to the Spanish Security and Intelligence services. He has been designated by the General Accountability Office as an expert on the impact of illegal immigration on terrorism.
Phil Giraldi is now the Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American Conservative Defense Alliance and provides security consulting for a number of Fortune 500 corporate clients. As a counter-terrorism expert, he has assisted multinational corporations in the upgrade of their security at overseas sites to help them comply with the Patriot Act. He was one of the first American civilians to travel to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, was brought in for consultation by the Port Authority of the City of New York in its planning, has assisted the United Nations security organization, and has helped develop a security training program for the United States Merchant Marine. He has written op-ed pieces for the Hearst Newspaper chain, is a columnist for AntiWar.com, and a contributing editor to American Conservative magazine. His media appearances include Good Morning America, MSNBC, NPR, BBC, FOX News, Polish National Television, al-Jazeera, and 60 Minutes. Phil was awarded an MA and PhD from the University of London in European, and speaks Spanish, Italian, German, and Turkish.
Birth of the National Security State
By Philip Giraldi 10/04/2010
It is not far fetched to speculate that the United States has, over the past ten years, been sliding into a form of authoritarianism that retains only some aspects of the constitution and a limited rule of law. America's president can, for example, commit soldiers to combat overseas without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war by congress while it is quite possible to be detained by the authorities and locked up without any prospect of trial or opportunity to defend oneself. The government even believes it can kill American citizens based only on suspicion. I prefer to think of this transformation as the National Security State because it rests on a popular consensus that liberties must be sacrificed in exchange for greater public safety from various threats, international terrorism being the most prominent. It might just as well be called the National Warfare State as it also requires constant conflict to justify its existence.
Three elements are necessary for the creation of a National Security State. First, there must be a narrative that can be sold to the public justifying the transformation. Second, a system of laws and regulations must be created that enable the state to act with impunity and also to protect the government from challenges to its authority. Third, technology must be harnessed to enable the state to surreptitiously monitor and control the activities of its citizens. All of these elements have fallen into place over the past decade.
A recent example of abuse of authority by the government demonstrates how several of the key elements can come together. On September 24th, the Obama Administration declared that it would ask a federal court to block a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to the government's contention that it has the authority to assassinate American citizens overseas if they are suspected of involvement with a terrorist group. The White House has invoked the state secrets privilege, contending that vital national interests would be betrayed if the case were to proceed and further that the president has the authority to target anyone for death in time of war. The state secrets privilege is the ultimate weapon to avoid exposure of government wrongdoing. It has been used frequently by the Obama administration in spite of Obama-the-candidate's pledge that he would run an open and accountable government.
The ACLU case focused on the one US citizen known to be on the administration's assassination list, Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Now, by all accounts al-Awlaki is an unsavory character, involved with at least one extremist group in Yemen, but the evidence that he is an actual terrorist or that he has been closely involved with plotting terrorist attacks has not been made public. At this point, he appears to have been condemned to death without any due process and without any opportunity to defend himself. The Obama Administration abuse of the state secrets privilege in this case is little more than justifying the practice of extrajudicial murder at the whim of a government bureaucrat. It also assumes that the whole world is a battlefield without any declaration of war by congress. If all of that is so, al-Awlaki can be killed and so can any other American for any reason or no reason.
State secrets is only one weapon in the arsenal employed by the government to create a framework of regulation that permits the government to act with impunity. The Military Commission Act, which candidate Obama vowed to let expire, was renewed in 2009 with virtually no changes. Under the MCA, someone can be imprisoned indefinitely on suspicion that he or she has provided material support to terrorism. Material support is not defined and can be interpreted to mean nearly anything. If accused, right to a trial by peers does not apply as the detainee is subject to a military tribunal and habeas corpus is null and void. And how does the government determine if someone is a "terrorism supporter?" Through evidence derived from Patriot Act authorized National Security Letters, which the FBI can obtain without any judicial process whatsoever to look into the private lives of each and every citizen. Nearly 25,000 National Security Letters were issued in 2008 alone. When someone receives a letter demanding that information be provided to the authorities it is a felony to reveal to the subject of the investigation that he or she is being looked at.
The second key element in the National Security State is the media depiction of a threat that makes the public fearful and willing to sacrifice rights in exchange for security. This effort is aided and abetted by the government, which is the principal cheerleader for the fear mongering. In the al-Awlaki case the media obediently depicts the man as a terrorist, never challenging the established narrative so it makes it easier for the public to accept that he should be killed for reasons of public safety. Another recent initiative of the same sort is the narrative that there are numerous American Muslims who have been radicalized and might carry out terrorist acts. One might reasonably note that as there are possibly ten million Muslims in the US if that were true there would be hundreds of incidents occurring annually, possibly one or two a day. Where are they? Yet the government suggests that there is an "emerging" threat and the media buys into it hook line and sinker. The public is again scared into supporting the National Security State.
Finally, there is the technical ability to look into the private lives of each and every citizen, which is increasing exponentially as the technology is refined. The federal government is currently seeking legislation to enable it to monitor internet, blackberries, and social networking sites. The centers of most American citizens are criss-crossed by surveillance cameras, while "traffic control" cameras record automobile information, and cell phone and internet providers maintain complete records on calls and emails for up to a year. These are records that the government can access through the National Security Letters, without any judicial review. Cell phone system monitors are able to locate anyone with a phone turned on within a distance of three feet and whenever a call is made the location is recorded. This means if you attend an anti-war rally your participation might wind up in a security file. Much of this and other information is collected into data bases, together with public record material like driving license information, credit reports, and details of criminal and civil litigation. How much of the information is actually retained is anyone's guess, but it is safe to assume that it is all kept for some time and that government computers can retrieve it at will.
Having lived in Europe, I know that most of these intrusive technologies first appeared on that continent, where people accept a high level of state control, only to be picked up subsequently in the US. The British government is currently introducing legislation proposing that all wage and salary earners have their paychecks sent directly to the tax agencies for processing. The government's stated intention is to make sure that taxes are being collected, but Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service computers would also be alert to possible money laundering and terrorist connections, raising the fear level to justify the action. After processing, the British government would then pass whatever money remains on to the person who actually earned it. Scary, but it is perhaps something that will also be proposed in the US by a Joe Lieberman, John McCain or Lindsey Graham, all of whom have used fear of terrorism to justify curtailment of civil liberties and intrusion into areas once regarded as private. Or even by Barack Obama, who appears to believe that a benign big government provides a solution to whatever ails you and is already moving towards monitoring all financial transactions.
The only answer to the National Security State a demand on the part of US citizens to return to constitutionalism and a rule of law. The government should not be empowered to kill citizens extrajudicially, start wars of choice, detain suspects indefinitely and without charges, use state secrets claims to avoid scrutiny, and obtain private information without a warrant. It is difficult to imagine a return to normalcy under the best of circumstances, but congress is complicit in the process and will do nothing. Genuine change will only come about when we the people insist on it.
Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 19 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992, was designated as senior Agency officer for support at the Olympic Games, and served as official liaison to the Spanish Security and Intelligence services. He has been designated by the General Accountability Office as an expert on the impact of illegal immigration on terrorism.
Phil Giraldi is now the Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American Conservative Defense Alliance and provides security consulting for a number of Fortune 500 corporate clients. As a counter-terrorism expert, he has assisted multinational corporations in the upgrade of their security at overseas sites to help them comply with the Patriot Act. He was one of the first American civilians to travel to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, was brought in for consultation by the Port Authority of the City of New York in its planning, has assisted the United Nations security organization, and has helped develop a security training program for the United States Merchant Marine. He has written op-ed pieces for the Hearst Newspaper chain, is a columnist for AntiWar.com, and a contributing editor to American Conservative magazine. His media appearances include Good Morning America, MSNBC, NPR, BBC, FOX News, Polish National Television, al-Jazeera, and 60 Minutes. Phil was awarded an MA and PhD from the University of London in European, and speaks Spanish, Italian, German, and Turkish.
Antidotes to Bewilderment
Dear All:
I know that for many of you the following will seem all too "neat" an analysis, after all, we live in a "free market of ideas (or at least so you think) and all of this smacks of (oh no Mister Wizard, not that disqualifier!) "conspiracy"- fueled view of things.
Indeed, for many of you the mere mention of Chomsky (only the most quoted and respected US intellectual in the world year after year according to reliable polling data ) is enough (among those of you that actually read Friedman and Krauthammer as something other than our version of Goebbels and friends) to induce gales of snarky condescension.
But be all that as it may, I'd ask you to read this short decalogue to see if it you think any of it might be applicable to our present day situation.
E.U.
Top 10 media manipulation strategies
Renowned critic and always MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, one of the classic voices of intellectual dissent in the last decade, has compiled a list of the ten most common and effective strategies resorted to by the agendas “hidden” to establish a manipulation of the population through the media.
Historically the media have proven highly efficient to mold public opinion. Thanks to the media paraphernalia and propaganda, have been created or destroyed social movements, justified wars, tempered financial crisis, spurred on some other ideological currents, and even given the phenomenon of media as producers of reality within the collective psyche.
But how to detect the most common strategies for understanding these psychosocial tools which, surely, we participate? Fortunately Chomsky has been given the task of synthesizing and expose these practices, some more obvious and more sophisticated, but apparently all equally effective and, from a certain point of view, demeaning. Encourage stupidity, promote a sense of guilt, promote distraction, or construct artificial problems and then magically, solve them, are just some of these tactics.
1. the strategy of distraction
The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
2. Create problems, then offer solutions
This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution. “It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept. For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant’s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.
3. The gradual strategy
acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years. That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions ( neoliberalism ) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s: the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, wages, and do not guarantee a decent income, so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.
4. The strategy of deferring
Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application. It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter. First, because the effort is not used immediately. Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.
5. Go to the public as a little child
Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children’s intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient. The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilising. Why? “If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger (see Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
6. Use the emotional side more than the reflection
Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis , and finally to the critical sense of the individual. Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …
7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity
Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement. “The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes (See ‘ Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
8. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity
Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…
9. self-blame Strengthen
To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!
10. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves
Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.
I know that for many of you the following will seem all too "neat" an analysis, after all, we live in a "free market of ideas (or at least so you think) and all of this smacks of (oh no Mister Wizard, not that disqualifier!) "conspiracy"- fueled view of things.
Indeed, for many of you the mere mention of Chomsky (only the most quoted and respected US intellectual in the world year after year according to reliable polling data ) is enough (among those of you that actually read Friedman and Krauthammer as something other than our version of Goebbels and friends) to induce gales of snarky condescension.
But be all that as it may, I'd ask you to read this short decalogue to see if it you think any of it might be applicable to our present day situation.
E.U.
Top 10 media manipulation strategies
Renowned critic and always MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, one of the classic voices of intellectual dissent in the last decade, has compiled a list of the ten most common and effective strategies resorted to by the agendas “hidden” to establish a manipulation of the population through the media.
Historically the media have proven highly efficient to mold public opinion. Thanks to the media paraphernalia and propaganda, have been created or destroyed social movements, justified wars, tempered financial crisis, spurred on some other ideological currents, and even given the phenomenon of media as producers of reality within the collective psyche.
But how to detect the most common strategies for understanding these psychosocial tools which, surely, we participate? Fortunately Chomsky has been given the task of synthesizing and expose these practices, some more obvious and more sophisticated, but apparently all equally effective and, from a certain point of view, demeaning. Encourage stupidity, promote a sense of guilt, promote distraction, or construct artificial problems and then magically, solve them, are just some of these tactics.
1. the strategy of distraction
The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
2. Create problems, then offer solutions
This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution. “It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept. For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant’s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.
3. The gradual strategy
acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years. That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions ( neoliberalism ) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s: the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, wages, and do not guarantee a decent income, so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.
4. The strategy of deferring
Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application. It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter. First, because the effort is not used immediately. Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.
5. Go to the public as a little child
Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children’s intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient. The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilising. Why? “If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger (see Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
6. Use the emotional side more than the reflection
Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis , and finally to the critical sense of the individual. Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …
7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity
Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement. “The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes (See ‘ Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
8. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity
Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…
9. self-blame Strengthen
To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!
10. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves
Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Jordi Pujol... and the Moral Misery of Barack Obama
Dear American Friends:
I spent last night in front of the screen, transfixed by an interview between Miquel Calzada (a local journalist of considerable renown) and the former president of Catalonia, Jordi Pujol on the occasion of the latter’s 80th birthday
I realize that most of you have never heard of him. That's okay because no one has ever led you to him.
He was the president (1980-2003) of a small country (Catalonia) trapped uneasily within a bigger country (Spain), a white man who wears ties and suits and will often sit down with businessmen in Europe and other parts of the Western world. Moreover, within the political spectrum of his country, he bears the label of center-right and is thus not likely to gain cache from much of the intelligentsia.
The world press, led by the big dailies in Madrid, long ago decided he was just another politician, one inspired by the usual motives: power, money and influence.
As so often is the case, they were, and are, dead wrong. Pujol is, and I say this as without the least fear of being hyperbolic, probably the greatest politician of his time (with the exception of the celestial Mandela) in the western world.
And the reason--which Catalans across the political spectrum understand with the intuitiveness that they understand and celebrate the special beauty of Barcelona--is simple; he is a man of unshakable convictions and an ever inquisitive intelligence who from the earliest moments of his performance in public life (the late 1950s in the midst of the Franco dictatorship) always put the love of his country and the pursuit of its well-being above everything else.
Tortured by Franco's secret police, ignored and disdained by the fashionable left of Catalonia in the first years of democracy, and hounded by the wholly frivolous legal challenges by the “progressive” central government of Spain in the 80s and 90s, Pujol simply, and here I quote from his own description from last night's interview of how he got through the torture at the hands of Franco's goons, “did what needed to be done".
And when he didn't do what needed to be done, he would go to the Catalan people and say he screwed up. But he would always remind them that he had made mistakes out of a love for his country and out a fierce desire to see it take its rightful place in the concert of civilized and moral nations.
Coming out of the mouth of almost any other politician, these words would rightly be seen as an act of cowardly sanctimony, an example of, as we like to say in the US, a scoundrel hiding behind the flag. But not with Pujol and not in Catalonia. Indeed, it would be difficult, even in the camp of his most deeply antagonistic long-term political enemies, anyone who doubts the essential truth of this assertion.
Why? Because the Catalans know Pujol and they know, more importantly, that he is, for all his human failings, the realest deal one could hope to ever see in public life.
In my scribblings, I often speak of the advantage of having points of reference that transcend the spectrum of “thinkable thought” in the US. My sense is that this is often seen as an attempt by man with an obscure area of academic and linguistic knowledge to play one-upsmanship with his countrymen.
But whether those that think this want to accept it or not, the experience of closely following the life and public performance of other people in other places facing social and moral problems very similar to our own, greatly enhances one's ability to place the "truths" delivered by a single media system (e.g. "Obama got the best health care deal he could under the circumstances", “They hate us for our freedoms”, Israel is acting in self-defense, “The US is spreading democracy”) in a broader perspective.
Put another way, to know and understand the flawed grandeur of Pujol is to truly begin to understand the moral misery of Barack Obama. With little more than faith in himself and his people and against a not inconsiderable array of hostile forces (the dictatorship, the central government, the Spanish media, and even many prominent Catalan exiles from the civil war) Pujol brought small nation that was near death not only back to life but into the "first division" of places with the highest quality of life in the world.
Conversely Obama, handed the keys of his hugely powerful country with an unquestionable mandate for change at an absolutely key moment of its historical trajectory, has spent his time cozying up to established interests and giving ever more farcically hollow speeches about his desire to make the world a better place.
As Pujol is never shy about reminding his interviewers and the Catalans all political stripes who have come to see him as the somewhat eccentric, but always-worth-listening to grandfather, "Courage matters".
It always has, and it always will.
At 48, poor Barry doesn't know this. A life of sucking up to powerful white men has eviscerated whatever notions of courage might ever have existed in his fatherless soul.
You will recall, Obama burst into the public consciousness with a much-celebrated search for an absent and erratic father. Pujol, in contrast, begins his autobiography, quite tellingly I think, with a simple but stirring affirmation. "I am the son of Florenci (father) and Maria (Mother), Florenci Pujol i Brugat, from Premià de Mar (town), i Maria Soley i Mas, from Premià de Dalt (neighboring town). In short, he is man from a family, a place and a lineage to which he feels a sense of deep honor and duty.
And it is not coincidental in my view that because he was the son of a father (whom he knew, worked with, and adored) he could become the father of a nation.
Because Barry was, as the title of his book tells us, the son of a dream, he grew up to become a dream. But as we know, dreams dissipate in the light of day when there is no conviction, no sense place or time, to carry them forward.
I spent last night in front of the screen, transfixed by an interview between Miquel Calzada (a local journalist of considerable renown) and the former president of Catalonia, Jordi Pujol on the occasion of the latter’s 80th birthday
I realize that most of you have never heard of him. That's okay because no one has ever led you to him.
He was the president (1980-2003) of a small country (Catalonia) trapped uneasily within a bigger country (Spain), a white man who wears ties and suits and will often sit down with businessmen in Europe and other parts of the Western world. Moreover, within the political spectrum of his country, he bears the label of center-right and is thus not likely to gain cache from much of the intelligentsia.
The world press, led by the big dailies in Madrid, long ago decided he was just another politician, one inspired by the usual motives: power, money and influence.
As so often is the case, they were, and are, dead wrong. Pujol is, and I say this as without the least fear of being hyperbolic, probably the greatest politician of his time (with the exception of the celestial Mandela) in the western world.
And the reason--which Catalans across the political spectrum understand with the intuitiveness that they understand and celebrate the special beauty of Barcelona--is simple; he is a man of unshakable convictions and an ever inquisitive intelligence who from the earliest moments of his performance in public life (the late 1950s in the midst of the Franco dictatorship) always put the love of his country and the pursuit of its well-being above everything else.
Tortured by Franco's secret police, ignored and disdained by the fashionable left of Catalonia in the first years of democracy, and hounded by the wholly frivolous legal challenges by the “progressive” central government of Spain in the 80s and 90s, Pujol simply, and here I quote from his own description from last night's interview of how he got through the torture at the hands of Franco's goons, “did what needed to be done".
And when he didn't do what needed to be done, he would go to the Catalan people and say he screwed up. But he would always remind them that he had made mistakes out of a love for his country and out a fierce desire to see it take its rightful place in the concert of civilized and moral nations.
Coming out of the mouth of almost any other politician, these words would rightly be seen as an act of cowardly sanctimony, an example of, as we like to say in the US, a scoundrel hiding behind the flag. But not with Pujol and not in Catalonia. Indeed, it would be difficult, even in the camp of his most deeply antagonistic long-term political enemies, anyone who doubts the essential truth of this assertion.
Why? Because the Catalans know Pujol and they know, more importantly, that he is, for all his human failings, the realest deal one could hope to ever see in public life.
In my scribblings, I often speak of the advantage of having points of reference that transcend the spectrum of “thinkable thought” in the US. My sense is that this is often seen as an attempt by man with an obscure area of academic and linguistic knowledge to play one-upsmanship with his countrymen.
But whether those that think this want to accept it or not, the experience of closely following the life and public performance of other people in other places facing social and moral problems very similar to our own, greatly enhances one's ability to place the "truths" delivered by a single media system (e.g. "Obama got the best health care deal he could under the circumstances", “They hate us for our freedoms”, Israel is acting in self-defense, “The US is spreading democracy”) in a broader perspective.
Put another way, to know and understand the flawed grandeur of Pujol is to truly begin to understand the moral misery of Barack Obama. With little more than faith in himself and his people and against a not inconsiderable array of hostile forces (the dictatorship, the central government, the Spanish media, and even many prominent Catalan exiles from the civil war) Pujol brought small nation that was near death not only back to life but into the "first division" of places with the highest quality of life in the world.
Conversely Obama, handed the keys of his hugely powerful country with an unquestionable mandate for change at an absolutely key moment of its historical trajectory, has spent his time cozying up to established interests and giving ever more farcically hollow speeches about his desire to make the world a better place.
As Pujol is never shy about reminding his interviewers and the Catalans all political stripes who have come to see him as the somewhat eccentric, but always-worth-listening to grandfather, "Courage matters".
It always has, and it always will.
At 48, poor Barry doesn't know this. A life of sucking up to powerful white men has eviscerated whatever notions of courage might ever have existed in his fatherless soul.
You will recall, Obama burst into the public consciousness with a much-celebrated search for an absent and erratic father. Pujol, in contrast, begins his autobiography, quite tellingly I think, with a simple but stirring affirmation. "I am the son of Florenci (father) and Maria (Mother), Florenci Pujol i Brugat, from Premià de Mar (town), i Maria Soley i Mas, from Premià de Dalt (neighboring town). In short, he is man from a family, a place and a lineage to which he feels a sense of deep honor and duty.
And it is not coincidental in my view that because he was the son of a father (whom he knew, worked with, and adored) he could become the father of a nation.
Because Barry was, as the title of his book tells us, the son of a dream, he grew up to become a dream. But as we know, dreams dissipate in the light of day when there is no conviction, no sense place or time, to carry them forward.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Mature Democracy
I was walking home from work today and ran into another demonstration, this one even bigger and more spirited then the one I reported on over the weekend. Here are some of the images of this second event, a march by government employers and labor unions against government “austerity” proposals.
Seeing the demonstration got me thinking about democracy and the way it is practiced in different countries.
As everyone knows, Spain is a young democracy where, as the New York Times likes to remind us, people have still not internalized the rules of civic comportment that inhere in other societies with long-standing parliamentary traditions.
The US is, of course, a mature democracy where people have long since understood the rules and fine points of citizenship.
For example, when people in the United States vote for change, they know better than to expect a change in policy. And when the people who voted for "change" see that it is not forthcoming, they understand that it is their solemn civic responsibility to not only not believe their lying eyes but to make excuses for the people who took their votes and did not deliver.
Moreover, they have successfully internalized the notion that the ultimate arbiter of public life and social morality are those wonderful entrepreneurs who, as they have been told time and time again, “create the jobs” that make us all prosperous and happy.
This is why when the new President for Change (PFC) gives corporations nearly $1 trillion to resolve the problems they created out of their own arrogance, greed and carelessness, and asks them for nothing in return, the citizenry in general, and the people who voted him in particular, know that it is absolutely no time for serious questioning. They know that he and his aides are smart men and women who would never knowingly go against the interests of the vast majority of the people who elected them in favor of the moneyed classes that staff the Administration and that showered them with money during the campaign.
In a mature democracy, the press understands its proper role. At a time when newsrooms are being decimated by budget cuts dictated, in turn, by “entrepreneurial” investors who care little if anything about protecting the vital role that the press plays in a functioning democracy, they understand that it is their role to snarkily describe anyone who dares suggest that the country, and the enterprise they work for, are being led by people who are essentially amoral, as a dreamer ( as in "not interested in real grown-up solutions") or some kind of 60s left over.
In fact, I've even heard of cases of journalists working in newsrooms where union power has been smashed and where the fear of firing is thus constant who nonetheless rail against unions and the benefits that unions have conferred upon the rank-and-file in other areas of the economy. But, of course, that's what people are supposed to do in a mature democracy; it is the individual’s job to internalize the sense of fear, insecurity and distrust visited upon them by government and business, multiply its strength, and pass it on to their fellow citizens.
In immature democracies like Spain people are evidently much less responsible. For example, when the Spanish prime minister who was elected with the near unanimity of the left side of the political spectrum announces salary rollbacks for public employees and curtailment of medical benefits for all citizens, those same left-wing voters take to the street against him!
They organize rallies that put him on notice that the votes they gave him can and will be taken away. And in truly immature fashion, they refuse to make excuses for him, reminding him instead of him of his past and present connivances with big business as well as the international agencies that do its bidding.
(Translation of little green sign: “We must cut back on: Bank profits, Subsidies for rich friends, No show jobs, Inept consultants, Corrupt politicians)
And get this, they even go so far as to suggest, in direct contravention of the deeply meditated wisdom of the business press, that money is not lacking at all in Spain and that the key to maintaining the social services that separate civilized societies from those where the mentality of the frontier casino predominates can be recouped from doing silly things like raising taxes on the rich and cutting budgets for armaments!
(translation: "There isn't a shortage of money but rather an excess of crooks" The picture is of Emilio Botín the Spanish Head of megabank HSBC)
I sometimes wonder if Spaniards will ever learn the credulous docility and passivity that being citizens in a mature democracy really requires. Meanwhile, I am sure NPR and the New York Times will keep us informed about Spain’s struggle to grow up.
Cops busy intimidating the crowd.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Outside the Bubble
As I was walking through the center of Barcelona yesterday, I happened upon a pro-Palestinian and frankly anti-Israeli protest march. See the video I shot of the event here. As an American, I have to say I found this quite refreshing considering the Goebbels-style "big lie" idiocy that has been served in the US press concerning the Gaza Flotilla slaughter, and it appears, widely adopted by most of the movers and shakers in the US government.
But the content of the protest was not the only remarkable thing to these American eyes. There were a number of things that contrasted sharply with how such an event--that is if such an event could ever take place on the largest Avenue of a very large city on a Saturday afternoon without months of previous planning--would occur in today's USA.
The first of these was the near total absence of police presence. Yes, police were there, but they were there as passive onlookers, citizens looking at other citizens with neither fear nor a desire to intimidate. Remember how it used to be before the advent free speech zones and the wholesale recruitment of police into the business of suppressing dissident thought? Well that's what we had here.
The second was the fact that the crowd was largely Catalan, that is, made up of people from this city who were publicly demonstrating a concern for people very far away.
Remember before the press constantly told us that "all politics are local" and that people "always vote their pocketbooks"? I do.
Back then, people used to have a belief that the mistreatment of people far away was also their concern, especially if it involved monies from their own government. But here I was in the midst of a crowd from a country that is not generally implicated in the Middle Eastern mess that, on the face of it, still seemed to believe that politics could be or should be something more than a referendum on one's pocketbook or on one's parochial concerns.
Silly them. Don't they understand that being concerned with mistreated peoples in other places is so yesterday? Don't they understand that they are citizen are there merely to carry out the "missions" that the empire has mapped out for each and every one of them?
The third was the crowd's ability to, as our blessed press likes to say, connect the dots. Where we come from people are not real big on cause and effect. Rather, we prefer to wallow in a strange mixture of self-pity and historical ignorance. But here in Barcelona we had a protest leader screaming into the microphone, a man by the way from a labor union, who was chanting about the fact that Israel's impunity was made possible by the indulgence of the European Community and by Israel's overwhelming control of certain financial sectors, and from there, large swaths of the media landscape.
Well, there must be a lot of anti-Semites in Barcelona. Either that, or a lot of people with a very tenuous grasp of international political realities in the US. Take your pick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)