GuidoWorld

When our government wants us to go to war they usually find a way to make it happen. Sometimes the government garners pubic support through elaborate and well orchestrated propaganda campaigns. Often these efforts involve exaggerations of the threat these nations pose to our national security. This could be as simple as labeling them as evil or endlessly repeating their unquestionable and untiring hatred of our values and way of life. It could also involve our “proven” knowledge of their possession or desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction or their “totalitarian regimes” gross violation of human rights. In sum, where our government’s fear and hatred mongering goes, war is sure to follow.

Yet, propaganda and innuendo are not the only tools used by our governments to satiate their thirst for war. Often we try to force the target nation into engaging in an act which we can regard as just provocation of war. We often accomplish this through harsh embargoes, sanctions and penalties on the target nation, or to any people who engage in trade or provide any services to the evil nation. Often we create, support, fund and arm guerrilla resistance groups who are labeled freedom fighters when working on our behalf.

There are many documented incidents and many more suspected ones in which are nation has conducted “false flag operations” which conduct open acts of aggression used as a catalyst and rationale to go to war. Such orchestrated events are either conducted, incited, or sometimes even fabricated (fictitious) and are often the deciding event allowing us to declare war on a nation.

Our need for war both economic and political appears to be growing as the frequency and number of battle sites continues to increase. Cessation of “hostilities” seems to be in word only, as our sustained military presence in the world grows beyond any previous empire. We are using banned substances such as white phosphorous, and robotic drones in areas where we do not even claim to be at war or even in conflict with the host nation. This is just standard procedure in our perpetual war on terrorism and our perceived need to police the world.

The title of this post is born from my concerns regarding the escalation of our open and escalating antagonism with Iran. Iran is an original member of the “axis of evil”. The essential economic and political need to war with Iran has been openly discussed in many political think tanks which are instrumental in the forming of our international policy. No US politician is on record (except perhaps Ron Paul) opposed to the idea of our forcing regime change in Iran, or to view them in any other light than an evil empire.

Though claiming to have exhausted every act of diplomacy with Iran we have rebuffed and ridiculed every attempt of Iran and president Ahmadinejad at establishing dialogue. According to what I have read we have denied his requests for a visa to visit our nation, as well as his repeated requests for an open live broadcast with our president, or to a response to at least one open letter he sent to our president (Bush) some time ago.

Recently the US government has significantly upped the ante in terms of engaging in activities and policies which could provoke Iran into acts of war. Many of the strategies bear great resemblance to what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, but some of them bear more resemblance to what we did with Japan in WWII. It may be that Iran being relatively large and potent needs the anti-diplomacy worthy of an emerging world player as Japan was in the late 30’s and early 40’s.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after we had upped our efforts to cut off its trading partners and oil supply, thereby hurting its currency and commerce. Attacking the US became the most obvious action available to save their economy and keep their war effort alive. Despite breaking their code and knowing their intentions we filled Pearl Harbor with outdated warships and were a tad lax with the passing on of crucial information regarding the exact location of their air
fleet.

Recently I’ve read several articles of how we are filling the Gulf area near Iran with ancient warships which are encroaching upon their territory. Couple this with the economic threats we are doing to Iran’s potential trade partners and the comparisons between WW11 Japan and Iran begin to look eerily familiar. This similarity takes on even greater dimensions when we consider the activity we are doing to reduce their oil income, and the damage to their economy we’ve inflicted through threats and punishments we’ve done to nations who have resisted our command to avoid doing business with Iran.

During the time leading up to the second Iraqi war as well as during its initial phase the US proclaimed with certainty its knowledge that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This was done in spite of the evidence gathered by the international inspection team on the ground in Iraq. While Iran has been generally compliant with the international nuclear monitoring agencies the US has continued to be more than skeptical that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. While often admitting that Iran is likely years away from a nuclear weapon and has no signs of delivery system able to threaten the US the government through the press continues to try to foster the belief that Iran poses and immanent and urgent danger to our national security.

In the long run US accusations of Iraq’s danger to the region focused more on chemical and biochemical weapons than on nuclear warheads. Interestingly there was a rash of international deaths of leading chemical and biochemical scientists during this time. The majority of which were involved in mysterious and suspicious deaths and suicides. One notable suicide actually involved a leading scientists with “multiple gun shot wounds to the head”.

Lately a growing number of Iranian and mid-eastern nuclear scientists have been murdered or died suddenly. A few weeks ago I read where Ms. Clinton or one of her representatives flatly stated that the US is opposed to “any act of violence”.

Such a statement is hard to swallow especially when President Obama was making statements defending and praising our usage of drones to kill “known” terrorists. While minimizing the “collateral” damage caused by long distance robotic attacks from the sky, he overstated current drone accuracy. I think it goes without saying that the US is not opposed to violence when it comes to “taking out” known terrorists or terrorists sympathizers.

Yet, wouldn’t a scientist who is working on nuclear projects which the US considers a threat to our national security be labeled a terrorists. If so, than how could the US claim to be opposed to the killing of such a scientist.

A couple of days ago there were numerous articles saying that we (the US) know that Israel is working with “known terrorists” groups within Iran in the killing of top Iranian scientists. Some are taking this as a sign that we are “throwing Israel under the bus”. Yet, stating that Israel is doing whatever it can to overthrow the Iranian government is not new news nor damaging.

If Iran were to retaliate against our ally Israel, that would give us reason to defend them by claiming war on Iran. It is also interesting to note two additional things. While the US says it cannot work with terrorists, it is not reprimanding Israel in any way for doing so, and in fact has just finished a major military venture with Israel furnishing them with a state of the art missile defense system making them almost impermeable to any damage by an Iranian attack. I also would be remiss to add that the US has had business relationships with a couple of the terrorists groups being bandied about as unsupportable by our government.

The entire terrorist label is kind of like a live grenade. Recent laws are giving the president the power to have any person even a US citizen killed if they are “known” to be a terrorist. The thought of our president killing people based on intelligence information proving they are a terrorist is very disconcerting even if one ignores the recent poor history of our intelligence community.

During my lifespan those considered to be a threat to national security have gone by many names and labels including; communists, terrorists, fanatics and public enemies. A short list of some of the people who have been known to have existed on these lists include Gandhi, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Mohammed Ali, Nelson Mandela many Hollywood stars, feminists, suffragettes, and workers union members. According to current law any of these people could in today’s America be killed or imprisoned without trial by our president or his representatives.

Many viewpoints of past presidents and several of the founding fathers could be considered anti-American by today’s standards. Much of our empire building and economic policies were warned against being viewed by the forefathers as a sign of the downfall of both democracy and freedom. One has to wonder if even someone such as Jimmy Carter has lost favor with our government. Mr. Carter is part of an organization called the elders  theelders.org) which was founded by Nelson Mandela and includes such political luminaries as Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan and Ela Byatt which works tirelessly in the realm of diplomacy and action for world peace. While other nations actively seek out the advice and expertise of these peace makers the US and its allies do not even invite them to the table, or use their diplomatic skills in any fashion.

Now I’ve never personally met any of the above people, but their actions and goals seem life affirming and unifying. It is very confusing to me to learn that the very politicians that Nelson Mandela considers to be personal friends, and defenders of people’s rights and freedoms are often the same individuals branded by our government as evil or tyrants (this list would include Castro, Gaddafi, and Chavez).

I must admit I’m becoming increasingly afraid to speak or even think in this country. I hesitated even writing this post for I’m becoming more scared of my self-professed protectors than those they say I am to fear.

I surely hope I am wrong about our governments determination to go to war with Iran, as well as their apparent intolerance of people wanting to be kind and compassionate and opposed to world domination and empire building.

Jim Guido

One example of how many of the founding fathers would be opposed to our current way of being in the world, and how we are destroying the very freedom and democracy it was founded on is:

“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword.. The other is by debt.”
-John Adams 1826

I along with many were deeply saddened by the entire situation at Penn. State University. One, of course, feels sorry for any children who have been raped or sexually exploited. Joe Paterno was an icon to many and the possibility that his actions enabled the continued abuse of children is quite disturbing.

Yet, the media led crusade for quick and swift action based on allegations and here say is also quite disturbing. Judgments were made and actions taken before a thorough investigation was conducted. Now, it may turn out that there was a coverup by the university or people associated with the university. Yet, one injustice does not justify another and one from of abuse no matter how vile does not excuse another.

Even before we have any idea of what Mr. Paterno is actually being accused of, he is fired, and his entire career is in jeopardy of being vilified. Did Mr. Paterno fail to follow through on his original report of the allegations to his superiors? Is he being maligned because he didn’t demand that Mr. McQueary go to the police? Is he being accused of a willful coverup of child sex abuse?

Obviously the punishments and censure to be meted out to Mr. Paterno would greatly depend on what exactly he was accused of and found guilty of. Yet, many conclusions have been drawn on the actions and intentions of many including Mr. Parterno before the questions have even had a chance to be investigated or in many circumstances even asked.

We can not do anything to prevent the damage that may have occurred to the children said to be abused, but we do have the ability to make sure that we don’t damage the careers, reputations and lives of people who may or may not have played a role in the abuse of these children. If found guilty the abusers and anyone who abetted or enabled them should be dealt with and serviced by the penal and mental health professions.

I have worked in the field of human services for over 30 years. I have worked directly and supervised staff working with many abused children and their families. I know the damage that can be done, and the difficulties many of the abused face in ever establishing healthy relationships with others. I also know that many who rape and sexually abuse children have been raped and abused themselves when they were children.

The world of sex abuse is not only very sad it is also very complicated. Imprisoning sex offenders seldom prevents them from offending again, and even extended therapy often needs supplementation to insure the continued safety of children. Those who have been abused often need treatment to reduce the likelihood that they themselves will not seek out new abusers or become abusers themselves when they become adults.

Yet, the urgency of the public outrage is indicative of a society that is more into quickly punishing a supposed bad guy than truly solving a problem or helping people become more healthy. I have witnessed many situations in which a rush to judgment regarding legal intervention into sex abuse has in the long run done much more damage than good.

I feel it is also important to point out that the laws and procedures regarding the reporting of sex abuse has changed numerous times over my career. While it is true there are federal laws, there are often important differences in mandates and report procedures from state to state. I mention this because Mr. Paterno’s handling/mishandling of the reporting could have been influenced by the procedures he thought he was supposed to follow. I know of many places where reports of abuse are to be directed to superiors of the agency or to a body such as the department and child and family services and not the police.

I would feel better if the public outrage was based on findings not just innuendo. It would seem less hypocritical if outraged citizens took on the widespread abuse that occurs and has been occurring in our society and by our leaders for generations.

Barely five years ago Mark Foley resigned from congress amidst the mounting evidence that he had made overtures and had sex with underage children. While there appeared to be substantial evidence of emails and instant messages documenting his sexual dialogue with under age boys no criminal prosecution ever occurred. Another red flag was the admission by Foley’s lawyer that Foley himself had been sexually exploited by a priest while he was an altar boy, and a priest admitted to having an intimate relationship with Foley for a couple of years.

Quoting from Wikipedia: As a result of the disclosures, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted investigations of the messages to find possible criminal charges.[4] Each ended with no criminal finding. In the case of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the “FDLE conducted as thorough and comprehensive investigation as possible considering Congress and Mr. Foley denied us access to critical data,” said FDLE Commissioner Gerald Bailey with the closure of the case.[5] The House Ethics Committee also conducted an investigation into the response of the House Republican leadership and their staff to possible earlier warnings of Foley’s conduct.[6]

You can see by the above wording that Florida law enforcement intimated that congress obstructed the acquisition of “critical data”. The resistance of congress to properly support or assist any outside investigation of possible sexual misconduct involving children by its members has been the rule rather than the exception. The list of elected governmental officials with a reported tendency towards pedophilia is rather lengthy and stretched through much of our nations history.

Here is another account of a previous scandal during the late eighties. I didn’t include the link mentioned, but you can Google the info and see the newspaper headline.

Another prominent case is that of the Omaha child sex ring run by Larry King a Nebraska businessman and Republican rising star (no association with the radio talk show host) . The sex ring was uncovered in a 1988 FBI investigation of King’s theft of $40 million from the Franklin Credit Union, which he managed. The investigation discovered King had flown children to Washington DC on numerous cases. While in Washington DC, the children allegedly attended parties and provided sex for some of the members of Congress in attendance at these parties. On at least one occasion, the Presidential Limousine was alleged to have been parked outside King’s condo during one of these parties. During testimony in court, one of the children gave accurate details of rooms inside the White House which are not open to the public………Check out the link from the Washington Times front page of 6/29/89 pictured below to see how this story reached into the Reagan White House:

The “Franklin Coverup” resulted in a book by that title and a TV documentary entitled “Conspiracy of Silence” which was inexplicably pulled from its scheduled airing on the Discovery Channel at the last minute. Those interested can see the documentary on line if they so wish.

The point of the last few paragraphs was just to point out that accusations of pedophilia is not foreign to our government and that police involvement has been rare, and prosecution has been even rarer. If we think a possible coverup by a major university is totally unacceptable than we shouldn’t allow our government to bury and ignore the rather substantial evidence of sexual impropriety amongst our elected leaders, and we as voters should not vote for any member of congress who has not done his utmost to expose and assist all outside investigations.

Moving on I think it would be safe to say that rape and sex abuse of any kind an not just pedophilia should not be tolerated. Well, it is sufficiently documented that rape in the military occurs at an astounding level. I will offer up a few quoted examples which could begin your own research into the topic.

According to NPR, “In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.” While an estimated 90% of rapes do not get reported.

And later in the same article.

How the military is dealing with this appears to demonstrate a pattern of sweeping it under the rug. In 2008, 62% of those that were convicted of sexual assault or rape received very lenient punishments such as demotion, suspension, or a written reprimand.

In another article I found:

Military sexual trauma (MST) survivor Susan Avila-Smith is director of the veteran’s advocacy group Women Organizing Women. She has been serving female and scores of male clients in various stages of recovery from MST for 15 years and knows of its devastating effects up close.
“People cannot conceive how badly wounded these people are,” she said, “Of the 3,000 I’ve worked with, only one is employed. Combat trauma is bad enough, but with MST it’s not the enemy, it’s our guys who are doing it. You’re fighting your friends, your peers, people you’ve been told have your back. That betrayal, then the betrayal from the command is, they say, worse than the sexual assault itself.”

Another factoid I found:

In Congressional testimony in the summer of 2008, Lt. Gen. Rochelle, the army chief of personnel, reported the little known statistic that 12 percent (approximately 260) of the 2,200 reported rapes in the military in 2007 were reported by military male victims.

The data regarding our penal system is just as damning as the military. I remember reading several articles documenting the high percentage of rapes amongst woman who are incarcerated and their pointing out that the majority of these rapes were conducted by guards and wardens. Yet, even more surprising was the fact that a majority of rapes of male inmates were performed by guards and wardens and not inmate on inmate.

Yet, despite all the documentation and testimony spanning decades neither the military nor law enforcement has done anything substantial to end or even reduce the sexual abuse occurring. In fact those exposing or reporting the sexual abuse often face harsher consequences than the known perpetrators.

Yet, sex abuse of children is occurs in almost any business or industry catering to or employing children, as evidenced by articles such as the following one.

According to former child star Corey Feldman, child molestation is rampant in the entertainment industry, as he told Nightline in an interview.
“The No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia,” he said Wednesday. According to Feldman, the “casting couch” exists for children, too.
Feldman asserts that directors and other adults in the industry take advantage of young aspiring actors on a regular basis. “It’s all done under the radar… But it’s the big secret,” the 40-year-old said.

There are a lot of situations in which pedophilia and rape occur in which we are totally unaware or there is little we can do. Yet, when it comes to congress, law enforcement and the military there is enough evidence and sufficient resources where we could make a difference and prevent many men, women and children from being damaged.
All we lack is the will power and conviction to demand a thorough investigation of chronic abuses. We need to keep the focus and public scrutiny constant and we need to make sure that investigations aren’t stonewalled or allowed to die out.

I might add that our government carries out abuses and atrocities throughout the globe which we turn a blind eye to, or even in the case of some forms of torture and execution without trial even glorify. I myself, never forget these facts, and move on. Any politician who supports or even tolerates these abuses domestic and foreign does not deserve or receive my respect. The fact of the matter is that I don’t know of a single elected official who is even remotely dedicated to the stoppage of these abuses. Therefore, it is impossible for me to live up to my principles while not demanding them to live up to their principles.

I’m am waiting and searching for a politician with a shred of decency and the courage to stand up to the abusers. Do you know of any?

Is expecting our leaders to protect our children an unreasonable goal? Is it idealistic to think that we can live in a society whose political, penal and military systems do not tolerate and coverup the sexual abuse of those in their charge?

Is it setting the bar to high to expect basic human decency and respect for human dignity to be the norm, and the minimal standard of what we work toward and tolerate?

If you’re outraged by what may have happened to a few boys at a major university in Pennsylvania, then you may want to go after the perpetrators of all thousands upon thousands of people who are ritualistically abused by our most revered institutions cited above.

If Joe Paterno is guilty of not following through and not doing all he could, then who amongst us is any less guilty. While Mr. Paterno may not have made sure that the police were involved and that the university acted in the best interest of the children, we are all guilty of allowing our politicians, law enforcement, and military leaders to aid and abet in the abuse of thousands if not millions of people throughout our history.
But politicians needn’t worry you’ll vote for someone no matter how corrupt the system.

Jim Guido

PS I apologize for those of you who are offended by this post. My goal was not to blame, but only to begin a dialogue that could actually have an impact on reducing the amount of abuse and damage in modern society. If I was a little harsh it was only because I am haunted by the reality of the problem and am dissatisfied with how it is being addressed by our culture at large.

As a veteran of so many social movements since the 60’s I view the recent efforts in Arab nations, the US Tea Partyers, and the #OWS (OccupyWall Street) with a mixture of hope and skepticism. My hope is small in comparison to my skepticism because like previous social movements I think they underestimate, what they are up against. Too many people trust in the purity of entities such as alternative and social media.

After personally observing how the student revolutions were infiltrated, corrupted, and finally co-opted by the corporate/military/industrial complex I am aware of how the integrity of a noble cause can be not only destroyed, but end up serving the long term interests of the establishment (the 1% in today’s lingo).

There were many other movements that have and are suffering the same fate as the anti-war student movement of the 60’s. In fact the majority of the others fared much worse than the students movement. A short list would include the civil rights and women’s movements, the ecological movement, and the anti-war movements of both Gulf Wars.

Please read the following quote numerous times. In fact make a copy of it and put it on your fridge, on a home wall hanging, or any place where you will see and review it often.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this
unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is
the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are
molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have
never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must
cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly
functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in
the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical
thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward Bernays – Propaganda – 1928

Look at the year that was stated. Almost a century ago our world was already dominated by perceptual managers. Mr. Bernays was not heralding a new strategy, but a science of social psychology which had developed to the point where he could confidently identify propaganda as the most powerful and pervasive ingredient of maintaining a democracy. In fact, Mr. Bernays and his ilk did and do believe that the very survival of democracy is dependent on the successful control of the public mind.

In my previous post What Money Can Do, I mentioned amongst other things the fact that the wealthy can and do employ some of our greatest minds to insure and expand their power, wealth and control. There is no social movement that will not be monitored, infiltrated, corrupted and influenced by the perceptual managers and PR minions of the wealthy.

Every day the techniques and strategies of social influence and perceptual management are being refined, honed and expanded upon in the practical laboratory we call modern society. The sophisticated techniques used by our intelligence and military agencies in torture, propaganda, brain washing, and removing resistance are being adapted and deployed domestically by the wealthy to further their agenda and to insure their continued dominance.

Just as our government gathered and employed some of the best physicists for the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb, the military industrial complex currently employs geniuses in the realm of social psychology. Terms such as spin doctors greatly downplays the sphere of influence of the perceptual managers who are working around the clock in their devotion to win our hearts and minds and make us dependent on those who are exploiting us and attacking our standard of living and quality of life.

All those who are feeling that the internet and social media are the tools of the next revolution should keep in mind that the internet was originally a pentagon project, and its main goals and objectives in terms of global and domestic surveillance and influence are still in tact. I see no indication that “they” have lost control of their project. In fact each day I see more and more signs of how they are once again successfully co-opting and incorporating all these Arab, European and domestic social movements into assets of their social engineering.

The desire for the powerful and ambitious to control and exploit the masses is not new, and as Bernays points out, it has a privileged role in democratic systems. Even in the earliest social democracies that existed over two thousand years ago the benefits of mechanisms such as bribery, corruption, deceit and torture were generally known by those in power. In the earliest democracies oratory was heralded and many politicians adopted the skill set of the conman.

Yet, over two thousand years the level of sophistication of propagandists, conmen and perceptual managers has mushroomed. One could say the effectiveness and knowledge of the techniques of persuasion and influence have grown geometrically with the birth of the sciences of social psychology and public relations.

Anyone who truly yearns for lasting and meaningful social change must understand and fully appreciate how potent are the forces able to corrupt, co-opt, redirect, or envelop any social movement. Everything said by or about a movement is monitored and analyzed and processed by perceptual managers. Every word uttered is an opportunity for the spin doctors and propagandists to find a point of entry into joining or redirecting the movement. Every moment new ways for a movements words to be reinterpreted or emotionally experienced are pondered. Without even knowing it followers of a social movement may be straying from the original intent into a version which is being promoted by the establishment.

The problem is that the average person does not have the time nor energy to sift through all of the words being said and have sufficient vigilance to keep their support of the movement pure. Movements themselves and their spokesman often do not see how subtle changes in language or in acceptance of minor ways their ideas are being framed by outside influences (media, splinter groups, etc.) are not only undermining but often altering the core issues of the movement. oftentimes altering the very proposals which have the most potential for dramatic social change. That level of thought and vigilance is more realistically able to be accomplished by the perceptual managers and their employers.

Significant, lasting and beneficial social change is still possible. Our desire to create harmonious and humane societies is a valid one. The goal of constructing societies which improve the quality of human life is not unrealistic or even idealistic. Yet, it is not the direction in which we are moving and until we fully recognize and divorce ourselves from the mechanisms of power, fear and hatred which are the basic tools of social engineering we will have a difficult time not falling prey to the agenda and dominance of perceptual managers who convince us that the elite are too big to fail and our very survival depends on their continued imbalanced success.

Jim Guido

The debate regarding whether conspiracies exist and the labeling of individuals as conspiracists becomes inflamed near the anniversary of the twin towers tragedy. As time goes on the word conspiracy seems to become fixed between two points one being that conspiracies are believed in by people susceptible to paranoia or are very cynical or negative towards our government. Often times the corporate media and sometimes our government seems to suggest that belief in a conspiracy theory is unpatriotic at best, and a form of terrorism at worst.

Yet, in all the name calling and labeling one seldom hears a frank discussion regarding what a conspiracy actually is. This, of course, allows those interested in social engineering and perceptual management an opportunity to use their craft to influence people to support the agenda of their benefactors or political ideologies with no reference to actual meaning.

So, let’s take a moment of clarity to revisit the actual definition of conspiracy.

conspiracy
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:

Okay, so does anyone really think that the human social and political world is completely transparent, honest, lawful and benevolent. If not, and you think that some people get together in private (secret) in order to accomplish a self-interest which may bend the rules a little in order to defeat (harm, destroy) and opponent then you have to admit that conspiracies exist.

I think it is to safe to say that almost every business, political and economic entity, sport franchise, military and intelligence agencies and local social group conduct some if not a majority of their planning and strategizing in secret. In fact most would go so far as to state that total honesty and visibility is impractical, bad for business, and probably destroy capitalism. In the political arena it would give your opponent too much of an advantage and probably cause the destruction of democracy, freedom and open the door to totalitarianism (the dark side).

Due to humans being social creatures and are societies being so complex and interwoven it renders most of human activity to be done in groups. And since most group activity is not shared with the entire populace than the majority of human activity fulfills the first two aspects of the definition of conspiracy.

The only behaviors which would not fit the definition would be those that are both lawful and which do not harm anyone. An action would still be conspiratory if it was secret and lawful but harmful, or secret and beneficial but illegal.

Yet, the real question regarding conspiracy is whose laws are we considering and who is being harmed. In economics in general and capitalism in particular there is usually a winner and loser in each transaction. We live in very competitive societies and have been engaged in the fight for survival for eons. Seldom do we have win/win situations, and therefore when one wins the other loses or is harmed in one way or another. Therefore, conspiracy is the norm and not the exception.

Those who deny that conspiracies exist either are blind or ignorant of the meaning of conspiracy. Almost every action taken by our (or any) military and intelligence agency is by definition a act of conspiracy.

Yet, the media and perceptual managers have distorted conspiracy to be about kooks and paranoiacs. According to their Orwellian dictionary good people never engage in acts of conspiracy and only enablers of terrorism claim that good people conspire, or lie to the masses.

Conspiracy has now become synonymous with questioning the “official” story of governments and corporations who are spinning information for various reasons, some but not all of them harmful. Yet, again what might benefit a certain segment of the populace may be harmful to another. The fact that our “democratic” government often creates policy and takes action in direct opposition to public opinion regarding war, citizen rights, etc. is a violation of our trust. Any such action done behind close doors is an act of conspiracy.

Whoever brought down the towers did so through an act of conspiracy. The fact that the official story is illogical and refutes the laws of physics is very troubling. So, is the fact that much information is still hidden from us a decade after the event. Yet, as I said, in todays world questioning an illogical story and adhering to the world of science opens the door to being labeled a conspiracy theory kook, and even a terrorist.

Yet, this is just another example of how our language is being mangled by perceptual managers in their attempt to foster a spun reality serving the purpose of those who can afford perceptual managers and social engineers. Before ending I’ll point out a few other terms which have been artfully tailored to have meaning quite different from their literal and logical ones.

In previous posts I’ve talked of how social engineers have replaced the literal meaning of entitlement with the feeling of being entitled.

entitlement
the fact of having a right to something:

Entitlement is a fact and a right. The label entitlements such as social security as a “program” avoiding the fact that the bulk of social security is taken out of our pay check. Not getting social security is identical to not getting your paycheck. Soon they’ll be saying that too many Americans “feel entitled” to their pay check and that we can no longer support “these pay check programs”, for literally a pay check is an entitlement. All contracts are entitlements. Yet, in today’s world corporations and governments claim to be victims of unrealistic and lazy citizens who expect a free handout (their deferred paycheck in retirement and social security accounts).

Other terms being distorted and warped to fill the needs of social engineers, propagandists, and perceptual managers are terrorists, humanitarianism, and freedom.

All aggressive and pro-active armies strike terror into any foreign people they invade or “support”. In the US any action done by any nation which is counter to our governments narrow and ambitious global agenda is a terrorist. Never mind if they are only trying to protect their people’s rights or improve their standard of living. Never mind if the US citizen or foreign individual is acting in ways which are popular and respected by the majority of people. The only litmus test that matters is if it adheres to the global corporate and US government agenda that we can only watch and try not to offend, lest we become collateral damage or labeled terrorists.

The globalists are increasing their aggressive grab of resources and power in the middle east. They are engaging in some of the most heinous acts in the name of “humanitarian missions” which are ostensibly supporting democratic efforts to overthrow dictators. The nobleness of their avowed goal is supposed to justify what ever means necessary to “free” the people.

These actions are being made in private between corporate and governmental leaders and agencies such as NATO often in direct violation of the wishes of their citizens. Much harm is being done to land, air, water and much death is being suffered by soldiers, concerned citizens and innocent bystanders. The war in Libya, as an example, was never sanctioned by congress in complete violation of our constitution, and according to opinion polls, opposed by a vast majority of Americans.

Most of our recent wars and military interventions are planned and decided in secret without our prior knowledge or inclusion. The literal definition seems to say very loud and clear that these are the actions of conspiracy.

Yet, the word game will continue, and the perceptual managers and social engineers will monopolize the discussion and do most of the talking. Those of us who ask questions or have a shred of compassion for others will be in the verbal cross hairs and suffer the injustice and slander of being labeled conspiracists, terrorists and enablers of evil.

Its a shame that a person following the ten recommendations of the previous post is no longer welcomed by the leaders of our society.

Jim Guido

Anyone who has ever taken out a loan knows the importance of interest rates. Whether the loan be for school, home, car or business  “a good rate” can make all the difference. Even though much has been made of the high debt load of the US our historic low interest rates hovering near zero have made it serviceable. If interest rates were to rise even a little bit, our debt load would quickly become unmanageable.

Almost immediately after the S&P downgraded the US from its AAA rating the markets began to plummet. In essence that was like the entire nation getting a lower credit score and a signal that higher interest rates for our national debt were on the way. All eyes were on the Fed to see how it was going to respond. The Fed surprised a lot of people and said little in direct response to either the market, quantitative easing or the integrity of US debt, instead the Fed pledged to keep interest rates at near zero till at least 2013.

Historic low rates and floods of easy money have been behind the stock markets meteoric rise over the last two years despite a moribund rebound in the consumer economy. The Fed’s assurance of low interest rates through the middle of 2013 along with the rising of the debt ceiling through the same time period should give an all clear to the stock market if the European financial systems can avoid a meltdown.

Though the pledge of low interest rates may reassure the wealthy that debt won’t kill the flow of easy money, it will force many safe investors on a fixed income into the risky casino of the stock market. The certainty of low interest rates means that those with conservative safe investment and retirement portfolios may not be able to live or survive on the interest alone, thereby resulting in their putting larger portions of their retirement and pension funds into stocks in search of income to maintain their life style or avert the possibility of their outliving their savings.

For a more in depth analysis of the ways in which the Fed and our economic policies are making life miserable for retirees read the following:

BERNANKE PLEDGES TO SCREW YOUR GRANDMOTHER FOR AT LEAST TWO MORE YEARS

 http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=199…

The market pundits and media could put up a rather convincing argument that the recent “crash” has already “priced into the stock market” a European financial meltdown and the prospect that “we’ve already entered a double dip recession”. Any data or announcements which indicate that Europe and the US economy are not as bad as recently advertised could result in a market rally and the official proclamation that the “economic soft patch” is over and the recovery is back on track. In that case a quick and strong market surge could begin which along with the dashing of any hopes of higher interest rates for those on a fixed or limited income, could entice/force those who have been risk aversive back into the stock market.

Then, soon as any recession data returns or another round of financial issues surface the stock market will tank even quicker and stronger than the last few weeks, resulting in a return of the bear market begun in 2007/2008. In this very likely scenario those coaxed and forced back in the stock market will be devastated. This means that not only will granny lose her last pennies, but those who missed out on the last stock market rally and who have been coaxed back in by the Fed’s last move will once again see half or more of their savings/investments evaporate.

Making matters worse is the likelihood that the last two year rally will prevent them from selling as the market goes down, for they won’t want to miss the next rebound. The problem is the rebound may not come this time. The same thing happened during the last great depression. The stock market crash of 1929 was not when most people lost their money, but after the rebound in the early 30’s followed by the real prolonged crash of the market.

So, those on a fixed income will lose their remaining money either through not receiving interest they are depended on, or in the stock market where they are attempting to make modest gains to supplement their lack of interest. Those who aren’t retired but are below or near where they were before the stock plunge of the 2008 recession, will either continue to stay out of the market or get in and get mauled in the next leg down in this bear market.

The transfer of wealth from the many to the few is about to pick up momentum. The coming deflationary depression will accomplish much of the same as the depression of the 30’s. A few entities will win the great game of monopoly and but up every thing at much lower prices. The great majority of people will be wiped out and be struggling to get by for decades while the handful of winners make the current billionaires look like paupers.

The common man will have no recourse. Very little of the money which was taken out of their paychecks for social security and medicare will be returned. Workers rights through the decline of unions and collective bargaining will be hard to rekindle. The great war machine of the military-industrial complex will continue to centralize power and wealth, and make most forms of protest or political discussion illegal and punishable.

Those who own debt such as the Fed and other central banks will not likely ever be repaid, but when the smoke clears they will own most assets, real estate and businesses around the world. At some point they will probably give up the ghost of trying to get loans paid off and find some way to forgive all debt. This has been done numerous times throughout history and even has a name for the occasion (Jubilee). After all is said and done money is an abstraction, but ownership is true wealth, and those who own the debt own the assets behind the loan.

Could I be wrong. Of course, I could be wrong. Yet, from a historical point of view this script has played out a number of times, and we all know the folly of thinking “this time is different”. The only way it will be different is if we make it different. Yet, at this moment I do not see any sign that we have the courage or insight on how to alter the unfolding script.

The combination of technology and globalism make it possible that this depression could be the most intense and severe of any on record. Will we end up in a return to Feudalism, or in a world similar to Brave New World or 1984? Perhaps.

Each previous global empire has fallen, and each previous monopoly game has resulted in new societies being formed in which the game begins again. Yet, sometimes there can be lost decades or even centuries before a revival. The scariest thing of this monolith is how efficient is its ability to monitor, survey, and shape perception.

Yet, the obvious question most of you are asking is what can be done? Well, we have missed a myriad of opportunities over the last few decades. Since the coming deflationary depression is weeks or months away from taking hold of the global economies there is almost nothing to do in  terms of prevention. The snowball is already careening down the hill, and the best we can hope for is not to be in its direct path.

Okay let’s take a look at what you can do in the short and long run to help yourself not only survive but actually improve your situation in the coming economic tsunami.

If possible get out of debt or at least continue to pay down your debt
On a political level stand up for the rights and freedoms of the little guy
Let Godzilla and King Kong do battle, but don’t get to close, or choose sides
Get out of the market and go to cash

To expand on the above points I’ll just say the following. People who own your debt own your possessions, rights and control your future.
On the level of regaining our rights and freedoms read my post 2nd Bill of Rights, or Google FDR’s second Bill of Rights. This would be a good start in terms of making sure that all citizens are treated with respect and dignity and not punished if they are not gifted, ambitious or ruthless. There is safety and power in numbers so embrace the little guy even if he’s a tad flawed or obnoxious.
Since so much wealth and power is at stake as the titans clash, it is best to get out of the way when untold trillions of dollars get lost and ownership goes to the last man standing.
Probably the last of my four recommendations is the most important. During a deflationary depression a great portion of money disappears as unserviceable debt gets wrung out of the economy.
In deflation wages and prices plummet kind of like what is happening on a relatively small scale in the housing market. During this time the buying power of money increases dramatically, whereby a thousand dollars today will buy 6 to 10 thousand dollars of goods then. A person worth $200,000 who keeps his money safe and out of risky investments will be able to live the life style of a person with assets over a million today. In other words as the money pool shrinks the relative worth of those not losing money skyrockets.

Let me address two other popular options often given to people looking to be winners during a severe economic downturn. One recommendation is to take advantage of a falling market and to short stocks. The second is to own gold, which is and has historically been viewed as real money.

An investor “shorts” a stock or the market when they feel the stock price is going down and not up. Since stock markets often go down faster than they go up, a good timer of the market can make substantial amounts of money in a very short period of time. Yet, shorting the market is highly dependent on smaller time frames and money made can be wiped out completely if the market has a rebound within the context of its overall decline.

Yet, even a vigilant and talented market timer can be thwarted by new rules and bans which are often enforced during “volatile” and turbulent markets. History has shown that the majority of market timers who have shorted the market have lost much more than they gained, and that during prolonged market declines bans and rule changes regarding shorting have made it almost impossible for the little guy to beat the odds.

I’ll have to admit that gold does have an allure, and one does feel a bit good about supporting a form of wealth and value that is tangible, and not completely arbitrary like fiat paper money. Yet, when I think about it and look at the historical record an investment in gold doesn’t seem as good as advertised. First, gold is both a commodity as well as “real money” and all commodities go down in a deflationary depression. Now, one could make an argument that gold goes down less than other commodities and largely be defended by historical record. Yet, during a deflationary depression the value of money is actually increasing so why hold have gold which is decreasing in value?

In answering my own question I could state that gold, having tangible real value, is an insurance policy against an arbitrary thing like the dollar. I could also state that since gold has real value one could always use it commercially even if the dollar were to fail. These arguments are valid in some contexts but fall short of supporting me recommending buying gold right now for the following reasons.

First, though gold is tangible and real, in dire times I distrust its functionality. I cannot picture a time in which my dollars would be worthless, but I could go into a local grocer and he would give me basic food stuffs in exchange for a fraction of an ounce of gold. When we all are in need, we need to barter need for need. If I were to getting tangible things to prepare for such an environment it would be amassing things like can goods, water, etc. for which I could barter. In a  depressed world of need, what can someone do with a bit of gold?

Second, if we use history as our guide we would notice that the ownership of gold was prohibited during the Great Depression of the 30’s.  The government banned private ownership and demanded all gold be handed in to banks which would give you something like $35 an ounce even though its stated worth was much higher. Now some people hid their gold and did not turn it in, but of course, they still couldn’t use it.

In today’s world of global tracking and surveillance it would even be harder to hide one’s gold than it was in the 30’s. Yet, your hiding of the gold would be in violation of the law, and therefore punishable if found out.

Since gold and gold stocks will most likely go down in the coming deflationary depression, it would make sense to me to wait on the purchase of gold until the bulk of the deflationary depression is over and the stock market has bottomed.

Currently the US dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the planet is viewed as being in jeopardy. Foreign nations threatening to stop using dollars as the currency of commerce are met with quick and strong political, economic and often military reaction by our government. Our political and economic leaders are very determined to keep the dollar’s role as reserve currency intact.

Many of the countries threatening to decouple themselves from the US dollar are increasing their storehouse of gold, and making efforts to replace the dollar with gold bullion. The nations most determined to get free of the dollar are or are quickly becoming our enemies and their actions and ambitions are labeled as terrorism. Therefore, it would not surprise me in the least if the US were to once again ban the ownership of gold for all US citizens and if they treated anyone who disregarded this ban as a terrorist or at least an abettor of terrorism.

In my post Communists, Terrorists, Charity and Compassion  I discussed a recent case in which something called the liberty dollar was being used locally in a transparent and open way as a form of barter/commerce. As far as I had known it was a very small economy agreed upon by a small number of merchants and was never misrepresented as actual US currency. So, in essence what you had was some actual silver being used similarly as gold advocates propose gold being used if our economic situation were to continue to worsen. Well, as you can see by the quote below the government came in and treated this practice as a form of terrorism.

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country”
-Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. Attorney, March 18, 2011 [von NotHaus trial]
Wouldn’t the government respond to the use of personal un-minted gold in the same manner?

One last thought before ending. Even the most doom and gloom conspiracist always talks about how the everyone including the Fed, central banks, government and financial elite are opposed and afraid of a deflationary depression.

The fact is that the majority of mega-wealth and power that these entities wield was created during and because of the Great Depression. Many of these same entities are well positioned to have another quantum leap of wealth an power due to an increase in the percentage of ownership in assets around the globe.

I find it hard to believe that the Fed and the financial elite are afraid or opposed to increasing their marketshare in their businesses or the percentage of global wealth they hold. The trend has been more and more money in fewer and fewer hands, is their a better or more complete example of how that takes place than in the aftermath of a deflationary depression?

Do we truly believe that those who most stand to benefit by the financial demise of the lower 99.9% of the populace are really working and making decisions on our behalf?

Jim Guido

President Obama ran on a campaign slogan of Hope and Change. At the time it was a call for optimism and reform. Yet now for the majority of Americans the campaign slogan can now be reframed as:

I hope I still have some change in my pocket!

I’ve never had a bumper sticker. But the above phrase along with a photo of the President might be worthy of finally giving in to pop culture.

To say that the campaign was a misrepresentation and that the President’s actions since he took office are a betrayal is an understatement. Hardly a day passes in which our nation makes a decision, law or statement which doesn’t cause me to be more afraid and embarrassed. I often feel I should go around the world and say to almost everyone, I’m sorry I really don’t hate you or believe you are evil.

I have not voted in the last few elections, not because I’m lazy or apathetic. I haven’t voted in the last few elections because I haven’t found a candidate whose value system I can stomach, let alone appreciate. I am truly a voter in search of a candidate.

Ralph Nader was the last person whose value system seemed to be worthy of a vote. I was a little tempted to vote for Ron Paul because he seemed honest and sincere, yet in the end his policies were a little out of date and dangerous even though well intentioned.

If the richest and most powerful country in the world cannot afford to be kind or share, than who possibly can?

I look around the world at the people our government hates the most and I’m a little more than confused. Chavez, Gaddafi, Castro, etc., reads like a list of those who do the most to benefit the standard of living and quality of life of their citizens. I’m not saying these guys are sweet hearts, or aren’t power hungry. But statistically the economic, social, educational and medical growth fostered under these leaders are near the top for nations of their size and type. People such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and other icons of freedom and social justice praise these leaders and consider them friends.

Our government has become famous for doing terrible actions such as torture, war, assassination, occupation and the illegal use of banned weapons all in the name of the good. Our government does terrible things for good reasons and noble intentions while our enemies such as the one’s listed above often do good things for bad or evil reasons.

The Iranian president’s offer to have a media covered open discussion with Mr. Bush and now Mr. Obama is labelled a clever publicity stunt, as is Chavez’s providing free heating oil for the poor and elderly in many nations including our own. Similarly Cuba’s long history of providing free medical care and disaster assistance for people around the globe is considered to be a PR campaign to distract people from the atrocities he commits.

While our government claims to be spreading freedom and democracy around the globe we have the highest prison rate in the world, and are steadily losing our constitutional rights, often due to the noblest intentions of winning the war on terror. Yet even pointing out these inconsistencies is something I do with great reluctance as it could cause my government to view me in a negative light.

I am a simple man whose major ambition is to be a good person and enjoy life. It pains me to see others suffer or to have their lives be dominated by fear and hatred. I know that it is possible to improve one’s world through being a good person doing good things, and that fear and hatred are seldom effective tools for positive change.

Maybe it would be more accurate for our next president’s slogan to be Fear and Hatred, rather than Hope and Change. That honest slogan may win the election, but it won’t get my vote.

09 Polylogue 1  http://guidoworld.com/music/zephyr/polyl…

Jim Guido

The last few posts have been dedicated to my explaining the type of people who frighten me and make me feel unsafe. What started out as an idea for a post of two has festered into a series. I hope to conclude this entire foray into my social demons in the next post.

In this blog I hope to quickly expand on my observation last time that “through taxing corporations, and the wealthy, cutting back military expenditures, and having prisons house only those that are truly a threat to the welfare of others we could quickly balance the budget and significantly reduce national and global debt.”

Okay, let’s start with taxing the wealthy and corporations. Our corporations are taxed at a historically low rate which comes in at a little more than 1% of GDP. If we were to temporarily raise it to a more normal 4% we would stand to gain between 500 and 700 billion dollars.

Individual tax rates for the wealthy are likewise at historically lows rates. In 1918 the top tier’s tax rate was 77%. From 1918 till 1964 the top tax rate went from as low as 63% to a high of 94% in 1945. The rate stayed above 90% from the mid 40’s till the 1964, almost two decades. In tax rate has drastically come down since the 80’s where it has languished to under 30%.

Just by raising the tax rates of the top 1% to a historically modest 50% we could easily raise an additional 50 to 70 billion in revenues. Therefore, through returning tax rates to rates more in line with the historical norm we could raise between 700 and 800 billion dollars. Compare that with the paltry 38 billion that Democrats and Republicans argued over to within an hour of a governmental shut down.

The revenues by taxing the wealthy are more than matched by the savings one could acquire by making cut backs to our defense budget and military operations. The following is from an article from the nation.

Dreyfuss writes, President Obama’s own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform(NCFRR) pointed out the $80 billion the U.S. spends on military R&D alone “surpassed China’s entire military budget by more than $10 billion.” Overall, Dreyfuss writes, the U.S. spends as much on military “as the rest of the world combined.”
What’s more, the Pentagon’s trillion dollar spending spree exceeds the general funds of all 50 U.S. states combined, which, says the National Association of State Budget Officers, will come to about $636 billion in 2011. Translation: Pentagon spending for war is greater than all public outlays for all purposes by all states. And while hard-pressed states wallow in debt and lay off teachers and police, “defense” contractors enjoy record or near-record profits.

Couple these disturbing and obscene facts with the following data by Dana Visalli from Global Research.

Global Research, April 18, 2011
A recent study indicates that 62% of soldiers returning from the war in Iraq have asked for mental health counseling, with 27% showing dangerous levels of alcohol abuse. Suicide rates among soldiers and vets have increased dramatically in recent years. Over 100,000 Vietnam vets have now killed themselves, far more than died in the Vietnam War. More than 300,000 veterans of the U.S. military are currently homeless, another study reveals.
The total cost of all military expenses for 2012 is estimated to be $1.2 trillion dollars, one-third of the total federal budget. It is the U.S. military that is driving the U.S. itself into bankruptcy.

The above article also points out that the US has over 1000 military bases spanning the globe.

I entitled this post Over Kill in homage to our defense budget and its global ambitions. We are years if not decades ahead of any other nation on earth. China who is second in the world in terms of military budget spends around 1/10th on defense as does the US. Even if we were to cut our military budget in half we would still be spending 5 times as much money on defense as any other nation. By cutting our defense budget it would still be more than we were spending on defense a decade ago, when we were still the world’s military superpower with no equal.

Since the military is 1/3 of our budget cutting the defense budget in half would reduce our budget by anywhere from 15% to 20%. Yet, cutting back on the military would reduce so many other national and international costs.

I included the stats regarding suicide, mental health and substance abuse to highlight some of the hidden costs both human and financial to our current military. One could also add on to this list, physical disabilities, rape and violent crime, medical care as well the costs of all the damage done to land, crops, buildings and infrastructure caused by bombs, chemical agents, tanks, guns, disease and all the other accouterments of warfare and military maneuvers.

The last costly sector I mentioned in the previous post was in imprisonment and corrections. Even though a disproportionate percentage of violent crime is performed by veterans who are suffering from PTSD or have other issues making their reintegration into civil society difficult, the overall rate of violent crime has been coming done over the last few decades. The overwhelming majority of people imprisoned today are for non-violent crimes such as recreational drug usage, vandalism and petty theft. The costs to the economy that these people pose is often times far less than the amount of tax money involved in the costs of imprisonment (i.e: food, shelter, clothing, correction buildings, supervision, health care, assistance to families, lost productivity, etc.).

In a previous post Need A Job – Get Arrested I discussed the underground economy of prison labor and its growing role in taking away jobs and reducing the wages for those of us not in prison. Prison labor is one of the hidden costs to the average tax payer in that work done for 25 cents an hour takes away jobs for some and reduces the wages for others who work for companies having to compete with prison labor.

In expanding on the social costs of the military one could add the dollars lost due to the mental and physical disabilities of a sizable percentage of veterans. In an aging population an increasing economic burden is placed on our youth to be more productive. Yet, for those struggling with war injuries both mental and physical the reality is that they find consistent employment hard to accomplish.

In review we found that substantial but safe and not historically harsh cuts in the military and taxes of corporations and the top 1% could total some 1.3 to 1.5 trillion dollars. In other words just those two action on a one time basis could balance the budget and probably begin the process of paying down the debt. If you were to raise the taxes on the 10% or make our defense budget only two to three times other nations we could stop all the talk of the need to attack social security or other obligations that workers pay has been used for.

The savings acquired by reducing a sizable portion of our non-violent prisoners and the positive impact reducing our military forces would have on employment, mental health, violence, crime and stable marriages for those not traumatized, killed, or debilitated by exposure to war, would probably be more than the 38 billion dollars that almost brought our government to a screeching halt.

Some may argue with my numbers. I myself could make a case both for higher and lower numbers on what I’ve suggested. Some also will try to say that these suggestions are reckless and would destroy our economy and our safety. First I would strongly disagree with these objections and consider them self-serving for the perception managers whose wealth depends on the status quo. Second, I would want to point out that we could always repeal these measures if they started to manifest any unforeseen complications or downside. Yet, in the short run we could finally put on the table some solutions that could actually have an impact on the sort of deficits and financial imbalances which we now face without a need to punish the already overwhelmed and underpaid 95% of US citizens.

Jim Guido

Recently I saw the Michael Moore documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story” and was shocked to see footage of FDR outlining a Second Bill of Rights during his State of the Union Address in 1944. How could a president have proposed this and I never heard of it?
Here is Wikipedia’s summary of this proposed legislation.

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second “bill of rights”. Roosevelt’s argument was that the “political rights” guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Roosevelt’s remedy was to declare an “economic bill of rights” which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

Excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[1]:““It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

If you go to You Tube you can see the footage and hear the address for yourself. This footage was supposedly lost for a number of years and was only recovered in 2008.

In my last post I discussed the significant role perceptual management has played in the US over the last 100 years. The desire of our government and corporations to persuade us to act and think in ways which preserves and enhances their power and wealth may help explain the fact that though I was born a little more than 11 years after this address, I never once heard of it during all my years of education.  Anyone saying these words today would be labeled a socialist or communist and could easily be labeled a terrorist and an enemy of the state.

Our perceptual managers lead us to believe that the American middle class has been the envy of the world for generations. Yet, the reality of the fact is that the American middle class is (was) a short lived phenomena with the bulk of American economic history having almost all of its wealth hoarded by a privileged few. Our current disparity of wealth and the destruction of the middle class has been the norm and not just a recent occurrence.

Here is an excerpt from, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century” by Andrew Gavin Marshall which I read today @ the Global Research on line at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c….

Throughout much of the 1800s and into the 1900s, the United States suffered several economic crises, one of the most significant of which was the Great Depression of 1873. As Howard Zinn explained:

The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crises – 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929) – that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie was capturing the steel market, Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.[32]
Massive industrial consolidation by a few oligarchic elites was the rule of the day, as J.P. Morgan expanded total control over railroad and banking interests, and John D. Rockefeller took control of the oil market, and expanded into banking. Zinn explained:
The imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests). Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.[33]
In the early 20th century, European and American banking interests achieved what they had desired for over a century within America, the creation of a privately owned central bank. It was created through collaboration of American and European bankers, primarily the Morgans, Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loebs and Warburgs.[34]

US history shows a marked tendency towards the systematic fleecing of all wealth from its citizenry to the economic elite than towards a spreading of the wealth and standard of living for a growing middle class. The short lived gains in the standard of living enjoyed by a burgeoning middle class can be explained by two factors.

Initially the middle class was formed as a beneficiary of the incredible wealth and power the US acquired as a result of the two World Wars. A temporary rise in wealth, opportunity and education engendered the necessary loyalty and productivity required to build the most powerful empire the planet has ever known. Second, the creation of a consumer class was needed to fuel the continued growth of industry and technology allowing the military/industrial complex to thrive and police the entire globe.

Yet, the actions and decisions of both the government and corporations shows that they never truly planned on honoring their contracts with the American middle class (i.e.: pension funds, social security). The role and need of the consumer age is on the decline. In its current phase the role of the American consumer is being diminished as the role of the global consumer increases. Yet, in a nanotechnological global economy dominated by artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and increasingly abstract financial instruments the need for actual consumption becomes less important to power and wealth.

My read of history is that the American middle class was largely created and exploited for the purposes of empire building. My read is also that the American and European middle class has largely served its purpose and is no longer necessary. No longer needed as consumers we are being prepared to return to our historical role as serfs and slaves.
If my gut is right on this, we should be very close to the next Great Depression which will attempt to ring the middle class out of all societies throughput the globe and consolidate all international wealth and ownership to a frighteningly small number of individuals.

Perceptual management is a science and a fact of modern life. Yet, the gift of perceptual managers is their ability to divert people’s attention from what is really going on. The talents of perceptual managers and propagandists is evident in the fact that most people still believe in the American dream and the integrity and honesty of government and business.
In our perceptually managed society anyone asking questions or making logical conclusions that pose a threat to the heart of their deception will successfully be labeled a conspiracist or an extremists. Yes, I know extremists and conspiracists are real, but so are spin doctors, propagandists and perceptual managers.

Jim Guido

Capital is defined as wealth in the form of money or other assets available for a particular interest such as starting a company. Another definition of capital is the excess of a company’s (or person’s) assets over their liabilities (or debts).

The entire system of capitalism is based upon an individuals ability to amass capital through asset accumulation, excess profit, investment and savings and then use that capital in business enterprises which will generate additional profit. A profit is generated when the money made from the enterprise exceeds the operating expense of the enterprise plus the original capital needed to begin the enterprise.

The system of capitalism is dependent on capital and a successful capitalistic society would be one in which a growing or at least sizable portion of the populace were able to participate in the system by being successful capitalists. One of the major ways of evaluating the success of capitalism is by seeing how frequent capital is generated by the economy.

Recently I read an article on Counterpunch.com by Bill Quigley which cited some interesting statistics regarding how the US money pie is divided up and the amount of assets (capital) people in the US actually have. Take a moment a digest the following facts.

First, there are 43 million people in the US living under the official poverty line.

The bottom 20 per cent of the US population have negative wealth, they owe more than the value of all their assets.  From 20 to 40th percentile, the next 20 per cent of the population, average about $5,000 in wealth.  The middle 20 per cent, from the 40 to 60th percentile, own $65,000 in assets.  The next highest 20 per cent, the 60 to 80th percentile, are worth about $208,000.  From 80 to 90th, the average wealth is $477,000.  From 90 to 95th, the wealth is $908,000 in assets.  From 95 to 99th is $2,734,000 in wealth assets.  And the top 1 per cent?  $13,977,000 in average wealth.

Okay, let’s reflect on what this means and what it says about US capitalism. First, one out of every 5 people (20%) have more debt than assets, and even if they were to sell everything and completely liquidate they would still be in the hole. So, to start with 20% of the people living in the US have zero capital, even if they were to sell everything they own. It is interesting to note that only 14% or so of people are officially recognized as living below the poverty line, which means at least 6% of people with negative net worth are technically not considered to be impoverished.

Next interesting thing to note is that the next 20% average a little over $5,000 in assets. This again means that those in this bracket would have a little more or a little less than five thousand dollars if they were to sell their, house, car, furniture, clothes, tools, and family keepsakes. What the hell could a person with no food, shelter, clothing, transportation or communication devises due with 5,000 dollars?

In terms of capitalism $5,000 dollars in our current economy is not much different than being penniless. You can’t get a loan with $5,000 in assets and what prospect would you have with no car, house, etc.

So, one can easily say that 40% of US citizens do not have any means of participating in modern capitalism. At best they can aspire to being indentured servants. When you consider how destitute the bottom 40% of the populace is in the US it is amazing that our crime rate is not higher than it is. Even though we have the highest per capita prison rate in the world (a little less than 1/2 of 1%) it is astounding that more of this 40% is not turning to crime. In fact, one could make an argument that crime is more prevalent in the wealthiest 20% than in the bottom 20%.

Another way of looking at these facts is to note that over 120,000,000 million US citizens have little or no assets or capital. Now, how could these people go about amassing capital?

Well, as just noted a couple paragraphs above, these 120 million people would not be able to qualify for any legitimate bank loan. Even though cutting down on expenditures sounds like a good idea there are a couple of problems with this tactic. First, since interest rates are at historic lows your money will not grow and therefore, not even keep up with inflation. Also, the more people cut down on consumption the harder it will be for businesses to survive resulting in more and more job losses. Therefore, the very people most in need of improving their financial situation will be the first let go in the ever rising unemployment environment.

How can one say that capitalism is succeeding when 120,000,000 people are essentially left our of its possibilities? To those who counter that some of these people could become wealthy due to a artistic or athletic talent, or through some other form of creativity or ingenuity I would want to point out that the small amount of people able to benefit from this form of talent lotto will not change the 120,000,000 figure. There are not enough high paying pro sports, music and literary contracts, or creative inventors to put a dent in the 120,000,000 figure. In fact, many potential inventors and creative entrepreneurs are dependent on finding “angel” investors or benefactors in order to raise the necessary capital to begin their venture.

The data regarding relative wealth does not include money owed the government due to the national debt. Much of our national debt is hidden, but even reportable debt comes out to about 25,000 per person. When you factor that in even the asset level of the next 20% become suspect when thinking of it as actual capital.

The reality of the situation is that we are bailing out banks and mega-corporations due to their being “too big” and too important to fail. While it is true that these businesses are struggling the statistics above clearly show that officers and high level employees at these institutions are awash in capital.

While the bottom 40% have only 30 or 40 billion in assets the top 1% have over 42 trillion. Okay, doing the math it means the top 3 million earners, are making some 3400 times the assets (capital) as the bottom 120 million. Many of these so called earners just happen to be so wealthy due to being related to, living with, or being the child of someone with wealth. And even many of the primary earners may not have ever worked a day in any meaningful fashion. The best and the brightest is often a euphemism for the most ruthless and exploitative.

In the early days of capitalism one could acquire assets and capital through luck and adventurism. In the US the moving west and claiming land could result it substantial asset growth through acquiring highly fertile farm land, or great timber, or land sitting atop mineral, oil or any other natural resource able to be adapted to the industrial revolution.

Yet, those days are long gone. Most of what can be owned is now owned. No longer can you strike out into a virgin area and acquire capital, now you need sizable capital to purchase assets. Everything has become a commodity to be owned, every bit of water and air has some kind of claim on it, even concepts are now owned.
More and more capital is filtering down to fewer and fewer people.

The total amount of government and business debt in this country is beyond the conceptual abilities of most people. Yet, this obscene and unimaginable amount of money still understates the problem for it doesn’t include government and business “obligations” such as social security and pension plans.

One has to wonder if you subtracted all personal, governmental and business debt (including obligations) from all the assets of our nation how much capital would actually remain. One has to wonder if its just the bottom 20% of the US that has no capital, or if the entire capitalist system is without capital.

From a purely logical standpoint it would make sense that all assets have a specific value at any given moment. The total amount of capital could be calculated by multiplying all resources and goods by the current price of these resources and goods. In this way the system remains somewhat stable and closed even though it expands and contracts by shifts in volume and price.

Yet, theoretically the system becomes unstable once the concept of debt and interest are introduced. Debt is neither a good nor a resource. While debt through loans may increase capital and economic success in a given project or for a specific person, it detracts from the overall capital in the system. This explains how we can have so many goods and resources yet have actual negative cash flow and capital. From a systemic perspective our wish to bailout out and stimulate the economy through increasing borrowing and the printing of money (both debt activities) will only decrease our overall real and functional capital.

I acknowledge that I may be misrepresenting or overstating some of the economic dynamics between debt and capital but I want to end with a couple of examples which support the practical possibility that debt exceeds capital in our society. First, the number of printed dollars in the US is a micro-fraction of our total debt. Second our yearly GDP which tracts the total amount of money generated by all the economic activity over the entire year is once again dwarfed by our amassed debt.

Another fact difficult to ignore is that each and every day that our debt grows the number of creditors lessens while the numbers of those in debt expands. It is hard for me to imagine that our current policies of debt expansion will in the long run lessen our debt problems or salvage the role of the majority of people as participants in capitalism.

I for one still believe that capitalism has been a beneficiary rather than the cause of the last century of relative wealth. Our mistaking the actual causes of the improvement in standard of living and quality of life experienced by millions of people and falsely equating it with free market capitalism may actually cause a noticeable regression in both quality of life and standard of living for many of those who had benefited from it.

Jim Guido

I can’t remember a time in which business and government weren’t thought of as being radically different and usually opposed to one another. Businesses labeled the government as intrusive and inefficient. The standard line was that government jobs and decisions wouldn’t survive in the real and competitive world of business.

If the government were a business, it was often said, the government would be out of business in no time. Government jobs were often characterized as “cushy” and had little need for productivity or efficiency.

The government was also viewed as a populist police force in which business success and progress was impeded by government’s policies and tax practices. Without government intervention the belief was “the sky was the limit” for the success and wealth of corporate America.

I’ll have to admit I never saw it that way, and as time has passed I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is little difference between government and business. In fact, in many ways the US government appears to be little more than a very large and powerful business enterprise.

Those acknowledging the more business friendly attitude of government throughout the years usually start by pointing out the increasing power and influence of special interest groups. Numerous trade policies, the destruction of the labor unions, and business friendly policies and tax laws are directly attributable to the monetary and legal influence of the business world acquired through the omnipresence of lobbyists in Washington.

The increased presence of the media through radio, newspapers, TV and the internet has made the success of political campaigns more dependent on highly expensive ad campaigns. The more elections are dependent on larger and larger funds the more crucial the role of campaign donations. Since wealth and business go hand in hand, it is easy to see how the role and importance of corporate America has become in national elections and even at times in local elections.

In a democracy the existence and survival of politicians is dependent on their being elected and the more elections are dominated by donations and monetary issues the more politicians are dependent on the support of business (corporate America). This reality has made it difficult for those opposed to the priorities and political platforms of the wealthiest of American’s to get sufficiently funding for their campaigns or get and stay elected.

Though these realities are difficult to ignore many still believe that mavericks and populist candidates can and do exist and get elected. Without media coverage no candidate can win a national campaign. Those few families who own the major media outlets are amongst the wealthiest people in the nation. Believing that these people do not protect their interests and influence the coverage produced by their employees is quite wishful thinking.

In most cases it takes money to attract money. Our entire political system is becoming increasingly dominated by wealthy people both as supporters and as candidates. This is not to say that the wealthiest candidate will win an election but more accurately that one will not become a national candidate without being wealthy or a friend of wealth. The majority of national candidates entered politics with a good deal of money while some were not themselves wealthy but found ways to get the support and backing of wealthy donors.

In other words as time marches on the national political scene in the US is being dominated by wealthy US businessmen and lawyers. Those running our country, Congress and the state legislatures and their governors are wealthy American businessmen.

When one has spent their entire professional careers being a successful businessman do you think they change their methods, practices and priorities once they become elected? Yesterdays corporate heads are today’s national political leaders and cabinet members. Those who govern today were yesterdays business leaders, and those few national leaders who weren’t business leaders before getting into office become wealthy business leaders when they leave office. If that doesn’t show you their loyalties and priorities than nothing will.

Our government is a business, a very large and powerful business. The old saw that business is efficient and government is inefficient should after all the recent bailouts be proven to be false. American businesses have not been efficient or successful for decades. Corporate America has been the recipient and beneficiaries of empire. For every story or invention and business integrity you can find you can find dozens of exploitation, piracy, intimidation, recklessness and the like as the source of success. We were a nation blessed with great and ample natural resources and a military will and ambition to use the resources and talents of the entire globe.

Our government is in debt, but so is corporate America. Taxpayers have been the only thing that has kept our government from defaulting and going bankrupt and the same could be said for corporate America.

Our government is a business it makes money directly and indirectly through its intricate and mutually beneficial relationships with corporate America. Most people now admit that our government has entered wars for purely economic reasons and not for political ideals such as freedom and human rights.

Our government is highly dependent on our military to maintain our role and position as the reigning superpower. One could make quite a strong argument that our military and the business of war are vital to our economic survival. Not only is war important in protecting our economic interests such as oil in the middle east, but our economy would probably fall apart if we decreased our domestic and international dominance in sales of arms and military hardware.

It is interesting to note that the largest media outlets in the US all have high stakes in the arms and munitions industry.

More and more people are becoming aware of the fact that the Federal Reserve is not a federal agency but a private banking cartel. This corporation through its contract with the US government is able to print money and highly alter the value of the dollar. In some direct and more often indirect means this private corporation is able to use and abuse tax payer money.

Yet, the government under the guise of representing the people is doing the same thing. They are a business and all of the major players are businessmen who are protecting the monetary interests of themselves and their friends through the use of tax payer money. The same people who promised workers retirement funds and reneged on those promises are now making decisions on social security and other tax monies they took out of our paychecks.

Tomorrow many Americans will go to the polls and exercise their right to vote. I myself am a voter in search of a candidate. I have no desire to support or enable a corrupt system which does not represent my interests or values. I have no interest in maintaining “business” as usual.

Our government and our society in general is far too dependent on the world of money. This makes us dependent on all the ways money is generated in the world. Money is power and security, it is the only currency we officially recognize. A society dependent on money is dependent on making sure that it is involved in the largest and most lucrative industries all over the planet.

Our government being a business must tolerate and exploit all the arenas of wealth. As long as many of the best prospects of monetary growth are provided by unseemly activities and industries we must condone and partake in those activities.

We must war and promote conflict to support our arms economy, and even torture and use shameless propaganda. We must hide and understate dangers such as the gulf spill and the air quality of New York City following 9/11 to keep commerce flowing. We must lie to people regarding our true interests in foreign lands that harbor valuable products such as oil, heroin and cocaine, while at the same time exaggerate the potential harms of nations not playing by our economic rules and conditions (Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Panama, etc.).

I guess many of you will not agree with the last paragraph and view it as cynical or exaggerated. Maybe I am wrong or am over stating the dark side of economics. Yet, it does seem logical to me that the wealthiest nation on the planet can only maintain that position by leading in the marketplace. A nation whose values and business practices were above or opposed to the functioning of the real economy would soon lose its position.

Let me just give you a few quick examples of our media’s complicity in seemingly protecting the interests of the wealthy, special interests groups, and donors. It is common knowledge that some of our nations largest campaign contributors are wealthy people from foreign nations who return favors with campaign contributions. One only has to think of the concerns that were expressed when it was revealed that many of Bill Clinton’s largest campaign contributions were coming from Chinese and Asian businessman.

Our media presents the situation in Israel in quite a different way than most of the world press. While most nations are horrified at the way the Palestinians are being treated, are press stands alone in viewing the actions of the Israelis with sympathy and support. The Palestinians are a captive people cut off from the world. Over a 100 Palestinians are killed for every Israeli and many of the Israelis are killed by friendly fire. They have no air force or organized army and have little access to arms. Israel is major player in world arms sales and has sophisticated technology such as drone planes and robotic gun fire run by soldiers in underground bunkers.

President Carter recently said that the Palestinians live “in a cage”. Reports of kids being killed by soldiers and robot fire for just moving “too close” to restricted areas is fairly common. Though being one of, if not, the most impoverished people on the planet the Israelis are currently burning their olive trees during their harvest season which is their most important crop as well as having social and religious importance.

While most of the world describes the situation as a genocide being conducted on the Palestinians our press and president still talks of Israel’s right to protect themselves and label the Palestinians as terrorists not victims. And, of course, since Palestine is not recognized as a nation and has no official or recognized army than any military action can be technically defined as terrorism.

It would appear to me that Israel’s sizable economic relationship with us coupled with its sizable and influential lobby makes them hard to criticize. In our own nation there are many wealthy political donors who are sympathetic to the nation of Israel and would not back any candidate who was critical of any actions of the Israeli government. All in all there is a lot to be gained by a politicians and the media going soft on Israel and a lot to lose by presenting some of the views accepted as fact in most of the world including our allies in Europe.

I began the last paragraph by starting out saying that it appears to me, and then went on to explain my perceptions and my reasons for my perceptions. The point is that when our priority is wealth and money truth is at least secondary and possible an obstacle. A salesman will often emphasize the strengths of his product while minimize or distract someone from recognizing the weaknesses of the product. In some cases salesman may even go so far as to totally misrepresent a product to get a sale.

When money is primary truth is at least secondary, which means when we are being treated as a consumer we can be fairly assured that we are not getting an accurate picture of the situation. Long ago we stopped being referred to and treated as citizens and have since been handled as consumers. As voters we are consumers of politics and politicians have become products we believe in and vote for.

We are a proud society. We are proud of being capitalist and proud of being a democracy. Improvements in our quality of life and our standard of living have been largely acquired through our economic system. Yet, now money is no longer a tool or a vehicle, but has become synonymous with the system itself.

And now for something completely different!

Here are a few miscellaneous thoughts and a couple of jokes I made up.

What do you call a Rastafarian percussionist?
The dreaded drummer

When gladiolas wilt do they become sadiolas?

A man is divorcing his wife for emotional abandonment. In court the man tells the judge that his wife spends all her time doing crafts such as sewing, quilting and embroidering. He states that she never cleans the house and when he comes home from work she never has dinner ready.

His final statement before the judge is that his wife seldom comes to bed and if fact the previous night he got no sleep due to the noise of the sewing machine whirring away as she worked on a quilt well into the morning hours.
After hearing this the judge turned to the wife and asked “how do you plead”?

The wife smiled and responded, “Quilting as charged your honor.”

____________________________________________________________________

Let’s look at the difference between the words here and (t)here. As you can see the only difference is the initial (T).

In physics (T) stands for time in many equations. And in the real world the difference between here and there is essentially time. Here is now and in the present. To get there takes time, even if it is just to look over there. Hence, here is now and there is not now.

Now lets take a look at the difference between here and where.

Here and (W)here.

Again the difference is one letter in this case the initial W of where.

It is interesting to note that the letter W is the first letter of most question words. Who, What, Where, When, Why and Which are all examples. How does not begin with a w but ends with one. It is hard to think of a question word that does not begin with the letter W.
A question is an uncertainty, and the difference between here and there involves going
from a known place called here to an unknown or uncertain place referred to as where.

So this observation is neither here nor there, but I’m here and you’re where?

Jim Guido