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.

Whether wealth be of an individual, a corporation, or a cartel of like minded individuals their is much one can do to further their interests. If the primary goal is financial there are many things wealth can do to protect itself, increase its dominance and significantly expand its relative worth.

One of the most sure methods of slanting the playing field in your favor is to maintain or create laws which maximize your legal and commercial advantage. The more wealth has influence and control over the political arena the easier it becomes for wealth to maintain and increase its position.

Though wealth can use its resources to increase and better its position in almost any political system we will focus on the tools and strategies wealth can use in democratic governments. Since politicians need to get elected they are very dependent on money, media and public relations to insure their attaining the office they desire.

In many ways we could make the argument that campaign contributions is wealth’s best friend. First you could make the size of your contribution dependent on the candidates promise or active promotion of the passage of a bill from which you will directly benefit. Second, you could tie your contribution into the securing of a position for yourself or a minion that provides you with an undisputed current or future business advantage.

To insure that your money is not being wasted betting on a losing horse, you can always wait to commit yourself to a candidate until the polls are giving a nod in one direction. In such a case the size of your contribution would need to be sizable to establish the politicians dependence on your continued and future support.

Yet, true wealth is free to contribute to as many candidates as is thought prudent. Betting on more than one horse in a race is fine and often one does not have to feel constrained by party affiliation. Cartels functioning as voting blocks can funnel their contributions through an individual regarded as a Republican or Democrat in a given situation to avoid appearing contradictory or disloyal. If profit is your main motive than policy is much more important than party affiliation, and the goal is for your contribution to go to a winning candidate who will feel indebted to you and your support.

Once elected a politician is in constant need of funding for re-election and political power. So even if you weren’t a big contributor during the campaign, you can buy yourself support and friendship through contributions of almost any elected official. In such a situation those of wealth can donate money to a politician’s pet project in exchange for their support of passage of any legislation which enhances their business needs.

In the realm of political influence by the wealthy we are all very familiar with the power and influence of lobbyists. The wealthy have long realized the pampering of and pandering to politicians is a very wise investment. The money spent is but a fraction of what it can generate.

The history of capitalism is full of stories where a corporation or business cartel pushed through legislation which gave them an unfair advantage or actually destroyed their competitors. The joint efforts of construction, the automotive and related industries did a fine job of passing laws which undermined the survival of the electric trolley, as well as a budding electric train industry. When I was young there was an electric train line that ran from Chicago to Milwaukee that despite a loyal passenger base could not survive the onslaught of being legally handcuffed and marginalized.

When the US was young its economy thrived and became competitive by passing laws which protected it from the monetary and technological advantages of British mega-companies. Yet, once the US formed its own economic elite the laws have changed giving back all advantage to the wealthy. The major reason why “free trade” is so popular amongst our largest corporations is that it takes away all protections from smaller businesses and allows big business to dominate every region both domestic and international.

Misleading titles such as “free trade” seduce the population into handing over their last remaining hopes of ever competing against the wealthy. If you are wealthy you can use “free trade” and “free market principles” to simply buy out any competitor, underprice them through volume or even taking a temporary loss through low prices to force them out of business. In return for your political donations you can get government (tax payer) subsidies, low interest loans, and favorable tax laws making it almost impossible for any competition to arise in the first place.

In business perception is everything, that is why so much money is spent on advertising, public relations and on perceptual management. Knowing this wealth is able to invest huge sums of money into creating consumer loyalty and demand. The wealthy can hire the best minds in the fields of social psychology, public relations and neuropsychology to best understand and influence the public at large.

Yet, for the wealthy such moves are only preparing the soil for their public opinion commercial farming. Even the least innovative or ambitious tycoon can place beneficial news stories, use their role as advertisers to influence what a paper says or doesn’t, and pressure the media to print favorable stories. Yet, the wealthy need not stop their, for they can actually own media or become part of a conglomerate that does.

The truly wealthy can not only own media and publishing houses, but fund or own universities, research organizations, think tanks, or control education policies and curricula. The truly wealthy can reinterpret if not rewrite history giving them and their projects a heroic and revered image. The wealthy can write the scripts that the average person takes as historical and modern reality.
The wealthy can fund or create non-profit groups which appear to be philanthropic or humanitarian and which function as tax shelters and attack dogs. One of the possible explanations of why the world’s most renown economists can be wrong so often yet remain revered is that the wealthy control the title of respected and famous economists. The wealthy have created a world where the only sanctioned “schools of economic thought” are those generated by its think tanks, universities, and businesses which protect and further their interests.

The wealthy can and do increase their net worth while being the world’s most prolific philanthropists. Through their non-profit foundations, charities, and humanitarian projects even retired billionaires find ways of using these havens to increase their overall wealth. In essence, the wealthy are able to use philanthropy as a commercial boon, which protects them from the IRS and has them become the heroes and idols of the very populace which are becoming relatively poorer through their apparent generosity.

The wealthy can also create socially conscious non-profits who promulgate their economic and ideological message. Oftentimes this can be done with the public believing its a grass roots organization. The wealthy can also infiltrate or contaminate any existing socially conscious group or movement. The wealthy can usually corrupt a well intentioned union, or move astray from its original purpose.

The wealthy can and have taken a non-violent movement and make it militant. The wealthy can create a bogus ecological entity whose extreme views and actions discredit or destroy the public support of a legitimate group whose public backing is interfering with the business profits of the wealthy. The wealthy can create or incite a war which will either add to their coffers or divert the public’s attention away from their malfeasance.

The wealthy can do pretty much what it imagines, and can hire people who can imagine for them. This is not to say that the wealthy has to do these things. It is only to point out that they can, and that to the extent that profit is their guiding force, that it is logical that they do such things. It is also important to point out, that those of wealth who do not do these things will be at a disadvantage to those with wealth who do these things, and therefore, will likely lose to the more ambitious and self-serving in then long run.

I do not think it is human nature or inevitable for successful or ambitious people to act in this way. Yet, I don’t think it is paranoid to assume or anticipate that economically ambitious people are and will do such actions which increase and protect their wealth and privileged position.

The problem is not in human nature or in the desire to be successful. The problem is constructing a social and economic system that rewards and fosters this style of being in the world. We have choices, but much money and energy is bering spent trying to convince us through fear and deception that there is nothing inherently wrong with a profit based capitalistic society, in fact we being told that our problems are due to the fact that we have never had a truly free enterprise system.
We’ve never had and never will have a totally perfect any kind of system. Yet, I have no doubt that we can create a system and a social structure that is far more humane and far more successful at reducing human suffering while improving the quality of life for the majority of those on the planet.

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

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

The tricks of a skilled magician take advantage of the natural tendency of the mind and couples that with additional elements of ‘the not seen”. Our minds are gifted at reaching practical conclusions while using the minimum amount of perceptual data, this is not only efficient, but highly necessary in maximizing our ability to survive.

We never truly see the world we functionally see. Most of the objects in the living room we navigate or the road on which we drive are only partially given to our vision. We don’t see the backs, or even a major portion of everything we perceive and know. The bulk of the lamp, couch and even friend we’re talking to are hidden from our view. So, is well over 50% of the car, building, telephone pole, curb and pedestrian which make up my perceptual field while driving. Add on to this the fact that our attention drifts and we execute most of our actions on auto pilot and our ability to live relatively blind is astounding.

Our mind is forever filling in huge gaps of perceptual data allowing us to successfully move about quickly and with little difficulty. We are so accustomed to this way of being in the world that we are generally blind to how little we actually see, and how much our mind fills in giving us the illusion of actually having a perceptual field and immediately seeing the world around us. As our eyes quickly scan our environment we have the illusion of seeing the entire room at once when it truth we are only seeing a fraction of the room (environment) at each focused moment.

Magicians take advantage of our limited vision and focus and trick us into making conclusions which are proven wrong in the end. By distracting our attention, encouraging us to make false conclusions, and doing actions in spaces we only think we see, the magician is able to trick or baffle us. The hand isn’t only quicker than the eye, but the mind is also often more involved in vision than the eye.

Vision isn’t the only aspect of our perception which uses the minimum amount of data to make an on-the-fly functional assessment of a given situation. Just as we can recognize someone by only seeing their hand we name a song after hearing just a few notes, or realize we are touching a couch on an initial bump in a darkened room.

Misleading people, and getting to think, feel and believe in things that they wouldn’t otherwise do is not just a magicians skill. Other long standing professions such as acting and the con man have long exploited the tendency of people to reach conclusions based on minimal evidence.
While magicians and actors have used this talent more to entertain and in some ways enlighten their audiences, con men have exploited our natural tendencies of mind for personal gain and control. Con men are famous for gaining one’s trust, for once you trust them you will accept and not question their tricks and motivations.

Yet, the desire to deceive, manipulate, and con has never been more common and pronounced as in the birth of the capitalistic consumer culture. The entire field of public relations was founded on the idea of how to influence people into seeing things the way you want them to. Good public relations allowed a company to retain a positive public image despite the fact that its success was dependent on your buying things you don’t need. Public relations became the science of propaganda and perceptual management.

In a free democracy funded by a capitalistic industrial consumer culture the role of public relations became increasingly important. In business the trust and loyalty of your client base was essential in ensuring your long term success. In politics the ability to convince voters to trust you and view you in a positive light was essential to your getting elected and staying in office.

Since the early 20th century the science of propaganda and perceptual management has been as important to business and government as any other science or discipline. The growth and importance of psychology in general and social psychology in particular has been powered by its essential role in both politics and business.

In 1917 the US government formed its official initial sanctioned body to assist in the new and important realm of perceptual management called the Committee on Public Information, also known as the CPI or the Creel Committee. As explained in Wikipedia CPI “was an independent agency of the government of the United States created to influence U.S. public opinion regarding American participation in World War I. Over just 28 months, from April 13, 1917, to August 21, 1919, it used every medium available to create enthusiasm for the war effort and enlist public support against foreign attempts to undercut America’s war aims.”

The techniques spawned by this rather successful venture in perceptual management helped social psychology and Public Relations become entrenched and cherished sciences of all capitalistic and democratic societies. Obviously propaganda techniques of deception and influence work best on people who are unaware of the exact areas their perceptions are being manipulated. This resulted in the avowed termination of the use of political propaganda being used domestically on US citizens and only being used as psychological warfare on foreign agents and governments.

In the political sphere the recognized usage of propaganda became relegated to the realm of psychological warfare and our stated desire to promote freedom and democracy throughout the globe. Wikipedia states that the U.S. Department of Defense (currently)defines psychological warfare as:

“The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.”[2]

While this definition states the primary purpose is on foreign groups it is logical that domestic groups and citizens can be the targets and recipients of propaganda if their views are contrary or not in support of our government’s national objectives. In this way it only makes sense that perceptual management techniques are used to raise capitalistic status quo sentiments and quell any ideologies or values which go against the grain.

In the area of commerce we have been able to be a little more honest about the pervasive use of perceptual management in the arena of advertising and corporate Public Relations. The blatant aspects of commercial advertising is admitted and embraced as a form of entertainment by business and the public alike. Every small business owner, tradesman and professional uses and is aware of others use of the art of selling one’s product.

While the more sophisticated and subtle forms of “marketing” and perceptual management are left unarticulated or examined, the general feeling is that most of modern advertising and perceptual influence is above board and benign. This has resulted in many people considering themselves advertising savvy and generally impervious to the techniques and influence of advertising.

It is common knowledge that our intelligence agencies spend a great deal of time, money and effort on improving the techniques of influence and propaganda in the whole spy world. Our ability to create, extinguish and direct insurgency and counterinsurgency movements in foreign nations is considered to be quite sophisticated. Our intelligence agencies have been credited with successfully using propaganda campaigns to incite a foreign coup, overthrowing enemy governments, and creating democratic movements in oppressed societies.

While the focus and ownership of Psychological Operations is on influencing foreign lands and peoples, throughout the years a number of government sponsored domestically targeted propaganda campaigns have come to light. Yet, their existence is quickly put in the past tense and their objective and influence is minimized whereby within a short time an agency of disinformation or brain washing is but a faint memory in the mass consciousness.

To me it doesn’t make any sense that our use of perceptual management is being relegated to the areas of advertising, foreign policy, and political campaigns. Obviously it would be counterproductive for our domestic propaganda and perceptual management programs to be popularized and admitted. Therefore, it is probably safe to assume that we are constantly being subjected to the latest and most sophisticated of social management and influence techniques.

No nation in history has devoted more of its intellectual and monetary resources in its military and related war industries. Our military research and expenditures are not just devoted to arms, bombs, planes and missiles. Modern warfare is not just about hardware and troops, but involves chemical, germ, biological, economic and psychological warfare.

During WWII the US recruited the greatest minds in physics to help build the first nuclear bombs. Likewise our space program of the 60’s also congregated the most advanced rocket scientists in order to insure the US won the “race to space”. Of course, the race to outer space was as much a defense department project as anything else. The push of the satellite boom came from a desire to control and monitor and communications as well as have a strategic advantage in standard warfare with the “eye in the sky”.

Most defense and war project have a tendency to filter down some of its technology for commercial and civilian use the satellite technology gave us huge improvements in meteorological information and prediction, as well as the birth of cable and satellite TV, as well as surveillance and GPS technology. Much of computer technology and the internet were originally defense projects.

During the two official years of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) great strides were made in the field of perceptual management similar to the success of the Manhattan Project. Propagandist’s learned just a few of the ways language and images could be used to elicit specific emotions and how to foster support for government policies and actions.

“The engineering of consent” as the early propagandists and Public Relations described their task has now been the commercial and political focus of the best social psychological minds for near a century. Perceptual management has received as much attention from our defense department as any other aspect of modern warfare. It is not only how we influence the decisions and policies of foreign nations, but it is also how we make sure our own nation stays stable and adapts and accepts the decisions of our leaders.

Though specific forms of subliminal messaging have been banned, we also know that violations of this ban have and do occur. We know about spin, and smear campaigns, and how our government through the media uses words to color and influence our thoughts and feelings. Yet, by and large we trust that our government is generally honest and well intentioned.

The success and effectiveness of propaganda and perceptual management is on its ability for its operation to remain hidden and secret. A popular magician can only let us in on how he did his trick if he no longer plans on doing that specific trick in that manner. His success at creating magic is dependent on our not knowing how he does it. Likewise, good perceptual management and propaganda is effective to the degree that those targeted to be influenced are ignorant of the exact techniques being used. The exception to this is if the audience finds the techniques entertaining and wants to be influences as this is the case with much of modern advertising such as most TV commercials.

We are peripherally aware that a lot of research has been done studying flocks, swarms and herds of birds, insects, and animals. We’ve not only studied the social behavior of living things but also studied the “group” behavior of things and events such as waves, sand piles, meteorological fronts, and various other “collectives” to understand, and predict group reaction. In both living and non-living collectives we are learning not only how to better predict when and what is about to happen, but in many cases are learning how we can influence and alter the actions of collectives.

By understanding the intricacies of a bee or ant colony we can influence and control much of the behavior of the group. The migration pattern of birds as well as the progression of wind patterns can be redirected and altered. The exact way in which this knowledge can be used in its application of human groups and herds is the stuff of modern research and science fiction. Yet, it is obvious that usages do and will exist for the purposed of perceptual management and social psychology.

The successful con man taught us years ago that their most effective psychological tool was to gain a person’s trust. Once a person trusted you they were easy prey to your confidence game. Even after the facts came to light many people were unwilling to believe that the con man wasn’t who he said he was, and that there had to be some mistake because he was such a good guy.

Yet, in the early years of social psychology other emotional tools than gaining trust were found to be just as effective. Two other successful emotional strategies are too create dependency or instigate fear. A fearful or dependent person will gladly hand over all power to someone who can protect them or act on their behalf.
Evidence of this method’s use in the US since the 1930’s is not hard to find. Fear mongering has been a staple of getting public support for most wars and military action. Likewise, fear of communism, socialism and terrorism have been used to blunt social change and well as have people relinquish their rights and privacies to insure their safety.

Our research and use of torture has likewise been used to teach us more on how to influence and control human behavior. The standard Hollywood version of the good cop bad cop strategy was born from the early studies of the psychology of torture. We also learned that a person being tortured often becomes dependent on their abuser. Since their very survival depends on the whims of their abuser they will often become attached to their abuser, and inside of that relationship became oddly loyal to their abuser.

Much of the early research into the science of propaganda was done by the Third Reich under Hitler’s Germany. One of their discoveries was that if you repeated a lie often enough, it would become accepted as truth by the majority of people. Over the last century this technique has still been a favorite of political propagandists around the globe.

While fear mongering and demonizing your opponent is still a pervasive tool of perceptual managers their are less blatant ways to discredit your opponent and thereby gain support for your position or agenda. It is rare that a single political race can be run in the US that does not involve some form of a smear campaign in which one candidates stock rises due to the lowering of credibility of the recipient of the smear campaign.

Discrediting or ruining the popularity of your opponent can be done is far subtler ways such as placing a bumper sticker for your opponent on a car and then having the driver of that car cut people off in traffic, swear at other motorists etc., all to have people associate the opposing candidate and their supporters as being jerks.

When peaceful demonstrators start to shift public favor against the war, the FBI and pro-war groups can infiltrate the demonstrations and try to incite the demonstrations to become violent while posing themselves as being anti-war demonstrators. Or if you’re a corporation whose profit margins are being threatened by ecological group you can turn public opinion against the ecologists by forming an ecological group that is extreme or has illegal practices thereby despoiling the popularity of ecological groups and their causes.

Most of the propaganda strategies I’ve listed in this post are pretty basic and would be taught in any basic course in Public Relations or Social Psychology. Yet, just as our government only sells relatively outdated weapons to our enemies, likewise, the latest generation of perceptual management techniques are not available for public knowledge.

Now, I’m a person with many interests, and trying to identify the ways in which my perceptions and actions are being influenced, managed and altered by professional propagandists does occupy my attention. Yet, people far smarter than myself, and very motivated and financially rewarded for developing methods and techniques to out fox even the savviest citizen, are working full time. Thousands of our best minds in social psychology are working directly and indirectly for our defense department in efforts to win wars fought on all fronts. All wars include not only physical wars, but psychological, chemical, biological, germ and ideological.

The fact is that trillions of dollars (mostly tax payer) are being funneled into defense department research insuring that our empire continues to rule the globe. The monitoring and winning of the hearts, minds and actions of people here and abroad is a practical and not just theoretical goal. We are being handled, monitored, influenced and coerced by the best financed and most intelligent army of perceptual engineers the world has ever known.

A successful corporation gives substantial campaign contributions to both candidates, to insure that whoever wins the election is grateful for, beholding to and dependent on their support. A skilled perceptual manager is ready and prepared for various outcomes. Even when a situation goes in an initially undesirable direction they stand poised to find a way to co-opt, exploit or redirect the matter in a profitable manner.

The current political turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East is a perfect example. The US has created, supported and maintained most of the despots whose future careers are in jeopardy. Yet, while exploiting the economic and political stability gained by dictatorships, we also have been funding and creating “democracy movements” in these very nations. The following is an except from an article I recently read in The Global Researcher on line by Andrew Gavin Marshall who is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

As the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report emphasized, “America’s goal in the Middle East should be to encourage democratic evolution, not revolution.”[26] Engineering, co-opting and controlling revolutionary movements or “democratic regime change”…..In a 2008 article in the New York Times, Brzezinski emphasized a multi-faceted strategy for dealing with this ‘threat’ to elite structures and interests, explaining that, “the monumental task facing the new president is to regain U.S. global legitimacy by spearheading a collective effort for a more inclusive system of global management.” Thus, Brzezinski’s strategy rests on better securing and institutionally expanding the process of ‘globalization’ into the evolution of ‘global governance,’ or as he termed it, “global management.” Brzezinski unveiled a four-point strategy of response: “unify, enlarge, engage and pacify.”[18]

The man alluded to is the article is geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, an intellectual architect of ‘globalization who has been very influential in US foreign policy and strategy. As you can see he advocates that our government needs to “engineer”, “co-opt”, and “control” revolutionary movements.
I invite you to read more of his thoughts. In sum, Mr. Brzezinski goal is to help the US maintain its role as world leader. He feels that without our governments control the US and the world would fall into complete chaos.

Yet, Mr. Brzezinski is a true perceptual manager. He doesn’t want people in the US or abroad to truly have choice or a say in the government. He only wants them to think they have a choice and feel free.

He believes that our government has done a good job of stripping American’s of most of their rights (and wealth) while having them retain the perception of freedom. He feels that with our governments guidance despots can be removed and replaced with pseudo-Democracies keeping the basic power structure in place. This would diffuse anger and discontentment while maintaining fiscal stability and a hoarding of the wealth in its current hands. This is consistent with the idea of the New World Order version of Globalization first publicly trumpeted by George Bush I in the late 80’s.

So, while you read newspapers which have over 70% of their articles written and placed by special interest groups and listen to scripted TV and radio interview dialogue you just hold on to the idea that you are the master of your domain and the author of your viewpoints. While you are busy following the debate between liberals and conservatives and Republicans and Democrats I will try my best to watch the magicians hands while knowing I’m missing more than I’m catching.

Do you believe in magic?

Jim Guido

PS I have some songs which address some of the ideas raised by this post (i.e.: Svengali, Mob Rule, Say Boys, Lies, Demonic Democracy, Making Money, Someone Will Die Tonight)

Just when you think the Wizard will be exposed as a sham the way he was in the Wizard of Oz when he exclaimed, “don’t mind the man behind the curtain”, the Wizard of the US somehow escapes detection once again. Where Dorothy’s dog Toto succeeded it seems that Egypt and the other northern African and Middle Eastern democratic movements will fail.

Less than two weeks ago it seemed like Houdini (the US) would not be able to escape out of his straight jacket in time to avoid drowning in the water tank. Yet, somehow our view was blocked and distracted long enough for Houdini to cheat his way out of the handcuffs and once again hear the applause of his amazed peers and fans.

Before I go on, I just want to say that these guys are good, scary good.

When the mass demonstrations for Democracy and Freedom began I did not see how the US could hide its true policies and priorities from being exposed. At the beginning all I was sure of was the fact that the US and Israel were both highly invested in keeping the status quo in the area, and would find true democracy threatening and unacceptable.

Yet, I must admit that the TV and media coverage was sufficiently disjointed enough to prevent me from understanding what was going on and why. It wasn’t until I read an article entitled “Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?” on Global Researcher.CA that I was able to get some insight and clarity. I strongly urge everyone to read that thoughtful article which had all the earmarks of real journalism.

I was a tad surprised and somewhat shocked when some of the US press began to praise and support the people’s movement. Even the White House and members of the Administration made statements saying that they were behind the people. While part of me felt encouraged by all this, a larger part of me just knew the game was far from being over.

The comments of support for the demonstrators was lukewarm at best, and not really followed up with any concrete action. When Obama claimed that he wasn’t in contact with Mubarak, I had a hard time believing it. Maybe, technically he talked through a third party to avoid a bald face lie, but it would be hard to fathom his totally abandoning such an important and long standing US ally, or the demonstrators he voiced initial support of.

While watching the news unfold I made a short list of predictions, strategies and interventions that would be attempted to diffuse the movement, and sway American citizen support away from the freedom demonstrators.

The first of these prediction came almost minutes later when either Obama or someone of his administration shifted the emphasis from support of the demonstrators and the need for Mubarak to immediately step down, to our support for the demand for reforms. Soon the call for “reforms” became the central issue. Obama and the other wizards began an endless verbal campaign of explaining how Mubarak had become out of touch with the people and had not listened to the US’s demands that he incorporate reforms benefiting the people. Soon we were told that these calls for reforms had been a central message from every president since he was in power.

The message being sent was that the US during Mubarak entire reign stayed true to its primal role as defender of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Yet, sadly Mubarak had not listened to their calls and recommendations. The President and his cabinet implied and sometimes stated that the US was powerless to get Mubarak to implement these reforms.

It is extremely hard to believe that we would classify anyone as an old ally who we were powerless to influence, especially, with the economic and military importance of the Suez canal at stake. Would we and Israel depend on the security of the Middle East on someone who did not listen to and implement their wishes?
If the US were truly desirous of democracy and freedom, they would not have been the only major nation not having live cable and satellite coverage of the day-to-day events. The old 60’s revolution chant of “the whole world is watching” would have to be modified to say everyone but the US is watching.

The attacks on journalists came shortly after US journalists attempted to cover the events to make up for the fact that it’s audience was the only one’s being left out. During this same period US journalists were allowed to investigate and conduct reports which could weaken if not remove support for the demonstrators. Reports of demonstrator violence increased along with reports of vandalism, looting, and destruction of artistic and cultural objects and sites of significance.
All of the above techniques and interventions were on my list as they had been so successful during the Iraqi wars. So, too, was the inevitable fear of the democracy movement resulting in the rise to power of Islamic Fundamentalist Religious Extremists. Also the growing investigative reports outlining how a democratic Egypt would most likely be anti-US.

I must admit the desire to keep Mubarak in power because he is a modern pharaoh was an unexpected and creative touch. In this way we could support a dictator because a democratic government would destroy the dignity and rich history of the entire Egyptian culture.

It does appear to me that the democratic movement has lost its energy, urgency and focus and now seems willing to let the status quo stay with the promise of future elections. Our government learned well from the mistakes in the 60’s when it underestimated the strength and determination of blacks, women and students. Somehow it was able to assist the Egyptian status quo from having to suffer the same level of prolonged chaos and adaptation to the desires of the populace. Through the artful abilities of the swayers of public opinion we now face the likelihood that Mubarak or one of his representatives will be present to insure that the future elections will produce a government the US and Israel can embrace.

The strife and rebellion in Egypt is not over, and another authentic surge of true revolution may still be in the offing. Yet, at this point it appears as if the Wizard of US(A) and Harry Houdini will live another day. Most likely the propagandists will continue to do their usually gifted job of defanging the campaign for democracy by having them win something called democracy which in fact is something far less than free or democratic.

Just as was the case with Obama’s health care reform bill, which in the end is doing little to disturb the status quo. In fact it looks to be so wonderfully crafted as to remove all fiscal hardship from insurers and instead placing all responsibility onto the patient (consumer). Add the fact that its minimal benefits are being overturned by courts around the country and you essentially have written a bill which has not reformed anything, but only empowered the status quo. This all being accomplished while allowing the faithful to believe that the president was a victim rather than an architect of a corporate friendly health care system.

In sum, the US will continue practicing torture while claiming to be the leader in human rights, censoring and controlling the media while talking freedom of the press, leading the world in percentage of the populace imprisoned while claiming to be the land of the free, and starving millions of innocent people through embargoes and the like while being ethically outraged at the pathetic acts of a few desperate terrorists.

Who out there reading this even remembers that a week ago there were reports of our government curtailing monies given to Egypt to support the advancement of democracy? Where is the discussion regarding the absurdity of saying we had no influence over a government whose military and economic stability depended on its receiving yearly funds from our government?

Who out there looks beyond the words of the Wizard of US and instead looks at its actions? Who remembers how many of the dictators we remove from office we placed their in the first place? Just how many democracies have we actually supported, as opposed to how many dictators? Who leads the world in arm sales, in direct or indirect involvement in campaigns of genocide, and in the stripping of nations of their national resources and sovereignty?

We may not be the bad guy, but are definitely not the good guys. Though falling, we still are an empire and have the opportunity to help create a better world with less strife and suffering. Yet, until we expose the Wizard to be the self-serving and greedy monster that the excesses of empire have made him, we will not be that beacon of hope we are told we are. The Wizard is not the President or any past president, but rather an image and ideal created to deceive the populace into not only tolerating actions done against our best interests, but supporting and demanding policies which strip of us our freedoms and cause us to be perpetually embattled with our contemporaries.

It is hard to imagine us becoming the trusting and kind nation that could live up to its stated objectives. A greedy, fearful and controlling nation can not at the same time be a beacon of freedom and a broker for peace and harmony. Our nation could feed the world, yet at this point it seems the thing we most feed it is bullshit.

Jim Guido

It is often noted that the best aspects of human nature come forward during times of emergency, crisis, and disaster. When a land is devastated by flood, hurricane, cyclone, earthquake or a volcanic eruption the entire world sets aside its differences and bands together to provide aid and succor for the victims. In times of need the general populace lends their hands and opens their hearts and wallets to assist those in crisis.

In my personal experience in human services I have often been amazed at how the poorest and most disadvantaged will share any money, food or gift they happen to stumble upon with their family or friends who are also in need. Some of the greatest acts of kindness and charity I have witnessed has come from those with the least resources.

Yet, the fact of the matter is there are many on our planet that are in crisis each and every day. While some events and situations make head lines and touch many hearts inspiring incredible acts of charity, there are many that somehow never rise to a level of getting people to truly make an impact or save lives. Each day thousands if not millions of people are starving, or suffering from some other form of life threatening need which goes unattended.

Let’s look at the following questions.

Do we have enough food to feed the entire planet?
Do we have enough resources to provide shelter and sufficient protection from the elements for all human beings?
Do we have the resources to educate and provide access of information to people allowing them to improve themselves and acquire their needs?
Do we have the resources to provide basic quality health care to all those desiring these services?

The answer to these questions is in most cases a solid yes, and in other cases at worst we can say that we have resources for the great majority of people. Yet, despite having these abilities and resources millions of people each day are doing with out and suffering unnecessarily. It is often said that we have a distribution problem and not a lack of resources.

According to Wikipedia, the fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. I would also say that from a philosophical level the reason for government has often been described as a means to protect the people through the enforcement of law. These definitions of government would be in contrast to anarchy where the lack of law could result in mob rule, and a relatively primitive form of survival of the fittest.

The fact of the matter is that governments are failing miserably at their basic function. We have the ability and resources and governments rather than being the vehicle for providing citizens with basic needs and securities have become the major obstacle of these basic needs being established and provided.

Providing people with food, shelter, clothing and health care is by definition the least we can do for people. We as individuals need to help make sure that governments fulfill their basic function, rather than their being agents of war and division which through fear and hatred keep our hearts and hands from providing others with the basic needs for human survival.

When millions of people are in crisis, providing for their basic needs is job one. No government is deserving of praise, respect or the support of their citizens until they are devoted to ending the suffering of all our contemporaries. In times of crisis individuals are able to put aside differences in ideology, belief and politics to focus on the matter at hand, We now need our governments to have a heart at least as big as the majority of its citizens.

It truly is the least we can do. And until we do it, it really is hard to say we have accomplished anything.

Jim Guido