GuidoWorld

While it is true that jobs are created through technological advancement it is also true that the need for many jobs is eliminated by technological advancement. A hallmark of the age of the machine and mass production is in the reduction of the need for human labor. Even early on in the industrial revolution one machine could do the work of hundreds of men.

This, of course, was great news for the capitalist who wanted to maximize profits by reducing overhead. Every advance in technology resulted in increased productivity and efficiency allowing robust profit margins and almost unlimited business expansion.

Advances in computer speed and mass communications only quickened the acceleration of the technological age, and with it more and more work is able to be accomplished with less and less people. For every job created through technological advancement hundreds, thousands and perhaps millions of jobs were made unnecessary.

As mass production morphs into automation and robotics the number of jobs needed or even non-injurious to profit margins becomes smaller and smaller. The jobs being replaced are no longer necessarily labor intensive or relatively unskilled. In a few years there will be few tasks that can be executed by humans as quickly or as masterfully as machines, computers, robots and the like. Our most talented, intelligent, educated and skilled professionals will be inferior to the machines they currently program or operate.

We are already familiar with the fact that most daily transactions such as stock market trading, accounting, business inventory, production schedules, or any other large volume operation is best executed and monitored by computers and machines. Each day the number of surgeries better performed by humans is decreasing with almost everyone recognizing that almost every aspect of commercial and urban existence will function better and more efficiently with human error being removed from the business equation.

It is deceptive if not an all out lie when we are told by politicians and the media that we are losing jobs to the Chinese or cheap foreign labor. It is just as dishonest or delusional to suggest that the future job market will depend on a higher educated work force.

The reality is we never will have enough jobs for the soon to be 8 billion inhabitants of the planet. We don’t even have a need for half that many jobs, and with the continued exponential growth of technology the number of jobs needed will be hastening towards zero much quicker than towards a fraction of 8 billion.

Rather than misleading people into a false hope of an industrial rebirth producing millions of jobs for the unemployed, we should be earnestly trying to design societies to function in the emerging technological age of robotics and artificial intelligence. The coming age could free people of labor while producing a standard of living for all inhabitants which would make even the industrial middle class of the mid-twentieth century look relatively impoverished. Yet, hanging on to the old exploitative model will surely render most jobless, impoverished and with a declining standard of living both in a relative and comparative terms.

The role of technology has always been to reduce man’s labor while improving his standard of living and quality of life. Let’s do our best to restore that role and not let technological advances be used and owned by the wealthy who pervert its goal and instead make it a vehicle for expanding the relative wealth of the monopolistic few.

The next few posts will most likely expand on this theme.

Jim Guido

Free speech in this country definitely seems like an endangered species. Over the last couple of decades the tolerance for true free speech and expression of opinion has been highly curtailed, admonished and even punished.

In the area of political discourse we have been told that any opinion expressed outside of the confines of a political campaign that is critical of our government or questions its policies is aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorist agendas. Even in a national campaigns we are more tolerant of personal character attacks then in questions of official international and military policy.

We now live in a country where one can be perceived and labeled a terrorist for holding viewpoints and articulating opinions which were sanctioned and encouraged by our social and religious leaders of the previous generation. We now live in a country where you can be labeled a terrorist for expressing viewpoints based in fact which are critical of the government even when the goal and purpose of expressing these opinions is to make the country a better nation or more in line with its espoused goals and ideals. We now live in a country where the president can have you killed based on the perception that you are a terrorist, or you can be locked up in prison indefinitely without trial based on the perception that you are a terrorist.

In the arena of sports the lack of free speech has been around for a long time. There have been firing of managers and media stars due to a controversial opinion or insensitive comment. Even as far back as 1968 Jimmy the Greek (Snyder) was fired for making a potentially racially insensitive comment regarding the role selective breeding by slave owners may have played in making black men into superior athletes.

While the economic interests have long placed a gag order on political and social commentary by athletes to insure that profits aren’t curtailed by alienating or insulting the fan base, the strictness of the enforced silence has been mounting. In the NBA restrictions on players and coaches rights of free speech have expanded to the realm of opinion of the game. Players are routinely fined for disagreeing with an officials call, no matter how unemotionally or diplomatically it is expressed.

The recent controversy regarding a comment by Ozzie Guillen the new manager of the Florida Marlins regarding Fidel Castro strikes me as particularly pertinent to a discussion of the lack of free speech in our society. Ozzie made the mistake of saying that in some ways he admired Fidel Castro. A vocal portion of the Cuban fan base of the Florida Marlins reportedly went gonzo about the comments and asked for Ozzie’s head.

Ozzie, who played for and managed the Chicago White Sox has had a decades long reputation for saying controversial and sometimes regrettable things. Seldom does Ozzie apologize for what he says, and in most cases simply states that his opinions are his and that he means no harm by them. Yet, in this instance Ozzie quickly retracted his statements, said they were a mistake and soon echoed the party line by saying he felt that Castro was an oppressive dictator and the like. Despite Ozzie’s protests that he was misquoted and misunderstood, and that he publicly apologized to the Cuban community for what they thought he said, he was suspended from being manager for 5 games and his future employment is being called into question.

Ozzie Guillen is widely known as being a proud Venezuelan and an active advocate for all Latinos in the game of baseball. In many ways he has been a leading ambassador for the expansion of Latinos in the game of baseball (both as players and front office). Ozzie has been highly instrumental at making sure that teams provide the necessary services for players who come to this country to insure they successfully adjust to the culture and business. With this in mind it is easy to see how and why Ozzie may indeed have a genuine respect for Fidel Castro.

The leader of Venezuela is himself a popular and controversial figure. During his years of leadership Venezuela has made great economic and social growth. While our leaders are opposed to his “socialistic” tendencies, many of South Americans are proud of his leadership. It would not be odd for Ozzie to know or himself be a fan of Hugo Chavez. Chavez himself has referred to Fidel Castro as his mentor, friend and hero for the masses.

So, Ozzie was castigated and punished for expressing an opinion of his homeland’s leader and the pubic at large. While this does mean we cannot disagree with Ozzie, it does seem incongruous action for a nation which prides itself in free speech. Likewise while there are many Cuban’s in the US who are opposed to Castro and his policies, there are many Cuban’s who are proud of Cuba and its social political path over the last half century or so. Of course, I live in the US a nation which is intolerant of any political agenda which differs from its own. In that sense, I ask, which is the more oppressive nation.

Many of the leaders we are told are evil, oppressive and ruthless dictators are respected by individuals which I have a high regard for, or whose past actions appear noble. How can one rectify these incongruities especially when we are demanded to view these leaders as evil, and any questioning or praise is viewed as punishable or a sign of a lack of patriotism or an act of terrorism?

Are/were people such as Castro, Chavez, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong-il the evil oppressive dictators that we are led to believe, or are they highly misrepresented because they are anti-capitalists or in opposition to our political and economic agendas. People who have dedicated their lives to human freedom and social progress such as Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Ela Bhatt often express views of some of these people which run counter to our government and mainstream media.

Just as Chavez views Castro as a mentor and a friend, Mandela likewise held high praise and admiration for Gaddafi who he deemed an instrumental leader in the economic and political growth and autonomy of the African continent. Is there anyway to rectify these highly disparate accounts? Is there anyway to assess the truth?

My first response to these questions is that there probably is no real truth, but one can look at facts and data to help in making a more informed and balanced decision. Also, it is important to realize that no one is totally good or evil, and therefore there is no simple answer. Yet, if we are to retain any vestige of our heritage of valuing free speech we must be tolerant of both the questions, the data we obtain and the resulting discussion.

The harshest most cynical critics of the US would say our government is only concerned about furthering its interests, political agendas and making money. It’s been said that when it comes to international affairs the US is only interested in freeing others, of their governments, leaders, natural resources, self-determination, cultural values and non-capitalistic ideologies and to replace these with subservience and unquestioning loyalty to the US governments economic and military agenda.

So, is the US real as bad as its critics say, or are the leaders of the opposition truly as evil as our government portrays them. Let’s look at some actions and data to help us get beyond the war of words.

One of the first things I learned about Cuba which seemed to contradict the main stream view of his being a harsh and oppressive dictator was in the percentage of highly educated doctors it has, and its leading role in humanitarian efforts around the globe. Both in practice and in theory it seems important for a dictator to keep the masses down by keeping them ignorant and isolated. Encouraging higher education seems to be the direct opposite of oppressive.

One of the first things I learned of Chavez and Gaddafi were that they were using their oil money to better the education and quality of life of the great majority of the populace. In both countries the middle class was increasing without the distribution of wealth being skewed to the top 5 percent. Shortly after Katrina I learned that Chavez had initiated a program providing free heating oil for families in need throughout the US. This program has continued and has provided free heating oil for some 500,000 Americans each year since.

I have read articles and heard politicians slam both Chavez and his free heating oil and Castro’s doctor dominated humanitarian assistance as “publicity stunts”. If they were publicity stunts the failed miserably as I seldom read any articles about these humanitarian programs and the one’s I did were very critical of both Chavez and Castro.

Oddly enough I did find one article on-line which mentioned that in 2009 due to economic conditions Chavez discontinued the program. Yet, the very politicians who publicly slammed Chavez for developing the program for “political grandstanding” and as a publicity stunt pleaded with Chavez to continue the program fearing that their voters who had become dependent on his oil and would retaliate and vote them out of office. Despite the economic hardship and with no press conferences outing the politician’s hypocrisy Chavez came through with the free oil.

Providing free medical care for emergencies around the globe and free oil for the impoverished has not been a hallmark of our economic and political systems. Though we teach our kids to share, our society steers us away from sharing as we get older. Sharing and charity are then portrayed as enabling at best, and harming the very dynamics of free enterprise at worst.

The detrimental role sharing plays in denying people from “making a living” is demonstrated in practices such as including the warnings to prosecute anyone who shares movie DVD’s even without monetary gain. Sharing, like expressing opinions counter to the mainstream, is becoming increasingly a punishable offense in the land of the free.

Okay, let’s take a look at some data which is designed to assess the quality of life and level of freedom in a given society. One such measure is known as the Human Development Index and rates the quality of life of nations based on a number of components including health care, education, cost of living, food, housing, etc. The US does well in this index coming in 15th in the list of 177 countries. The list of nations above the US are dominated by the northern European socialistic democracies that are corporate heads and politicians often bemoan as unrealistic economic frauds.

Yet, the list of best nations also includes Canada at 3, Japan at 8, and France at 11. It is interesting to note that two of the nations the US often heralds for their current economic boons China and India score poorly at 94 and 132 respectively. Despite being a small island with almost no natural resources and suffering through over a half century of economic sanctions by the most powerful empire of all time, Cuba ranks an astounding 48th on the list. Libya and Venezuela two of the other nations we express great concerns with regarding their oppressive regimes came in at 52 and 61. Iran despite its oil wealth and technological modernization ranked 84th somewhat validating the concerns our government has on its inhabitants quality of life and the oppressiveness of the society.

The information regarding educational opportunities, literacy and graduation rates was quite surprising. In Cuba one out of every 157 people is a medical doctor, in the US it is one out of every 358. When it comes to percentage of the populace with doctorates Cuba ranked 2nd, the US ranked 52nd, North Korea ranked 28th, Venezuela came in at 66, Libya 94, Italy was 8th, China came in at 77th, and India was a very disappointing 124th slightly behind Iraq.

You would think that evil repressive regimes and ruthless and backward nations would not allow its masses to become educated in fact one would think that a high literacy rate would be indicative of an open and free society. So lets take a look at the literacy rate of the 177 or so nations that are part of the UN. Cuba is an astounding 2nd in literacy rates. Russia is 15th and Greece is 60th. The US is an appalling 45th only slightly above Libya’s 54th which is by far the most literate African nation. China is 68th only slightly ahead of Venezuela which is 71st. Mexico is 85th and India is a deplorable 137th.

The research data seemed to suggest that Chavez, Castro and Gaddafi all had significant positive impacts on the quality of life and personal development of its populaces. The data on Iran and North Korea was inconclusive, but did not support the idea of their being particularly oppressive societies. In an effort to gain some additional clarity in terms of which nations are oppressive and not acting in the interests of their populace or whose actions inhibit or are opposed to its citizens functional freedom I looked at the data regarding imprisonment and executions.

When I was young I heard many stories of how oppressive totalitarian governments frequently engaged in violations of personal rights and sent many people to jail who resisted the iron rule over the people. The communist nations of the USSR and China always led the way in terms of using imprisonment as a way to keep the populace in line. Likewise, the stories continued that Castro’s Cuba was particularly harsh and intolerant to those opposed to Castro’s views. The truism always was nations opposing freedom put many in jail and engaged in frequent executions. So, what do the most recent stats regarding imprisonment and execution show.

The statistics regarding executions were the only one’s I used which were adjusted according to population (per capita). Therefore, China’s lead of 470 executions is mitigated some because of its size. While Iran’s 357 did seem to be more extreme due to its much smaller population. Saudia Arabia ranked 3rd behind Iran and China, and once again appeared egregious due to its small population. The US ranked 7th with 42 executions and due to its size seemed to fair better than Cuba with 5 and Libya with 9, yet neither nation’s stats seemed to indicate a brutal regime. Venezuela had no reported executions. This list of executions was for the year 2007 which was the most recent I found statistics for.

The imprisonment data seemed to be very damaging to the image of the US as the land of the free, and did much to destroy the reputation of many of the nations we’ve been talking to as brutal, intolerant and oppressive regimes. The US’s prison population is off the charts with 715 people imprisoned for every 100,000 citizens. The next in line is Russia with about 584 per 100,000. Iran is 33rd with 226 which means we imprison three times as many people as Iran. China is 71st with 119, which runs very counter to the image our government portrays. Israel ranks 46th with 174 which is almost identical to Libya. Venezuela imprisonment rate is pretty low as it only imprisons 107 per 100,000.

Cuba’s prison population is so small that it does not even imprison one person for every 100,000. How can a ruthless dictator oppress a nation without finding a need to imprison one person per every 100,000 citizens? Yes, I realize some have “escaped” Cuba and have left illegally and placed themselves in danger to escape a government and political system they hated.

I know a few people who have visited Cuba and found it to be oppressive and witnessed a significant amount of poverty. Yet, I also know a greater number of people, many Bahamian, who have visited Cuba numerous times and find the people generally content and are impressed with the society and government.

All in all I do not find any reason that Ozzie Guillen needed to apologize for admiring Castro. I know of many Latinos and other people of color who view Castro and Chavez as heroes in the fight for freedom for much of the America’s and Caribbean nations. I also find it troubling that our nation finds it necessary to intimate, punish and bully people from expressing any positive sentiments of these leaders or their nation’s policies.

This essay does not even begin to address the fact that the US is a world leader in such barbaric and oppressive actions such as torture, the use of banned substances, and in the killing of innocent citizens through bombing and harsh sanctions. I encourage you to do your own research to try to get beyond the propaganda and political rhetoric and find out the facts
I’m not saying that the US is bad and the others are good, but only that if we want to claim to be the land of freedom, we need to start to act like a nation committed to free speech and freedom. The more our government claims moral superiority and denounces other nations whose data in the areas of human rights and working on the improvement in its citizens standard of living compare favorably to our recent efforts, the more they lose credibility.

I have never met any of the leaders of any of these nations, so I cannot say with any confidence which people are well intentioned and good to what degree and to what degree they are ill intentioned or self-serving. I can only say that at this point in time I am losing trust in our government’s willingness and ability to be honest with us, and to act in our best interest. And each day I get more and more concerned that our government and social structure is becoming less tolerant of open dialogue and the expression of ideas that are not in lock step with the economic and political goals and agendas serving the privileged few.

Jim Guido

I must admit that I get more than a little anxious when I write posts such as my two most recent Let’s Hope I’m Wrong and Wealth Extraction and Transfer. While I am comfortable with both my intentions and conceptual integrity I am afraid to print my thoughts out of fear of being viewed and treated as a harmful element by our government.

I personally do not feel that I am living in a free society which welcomes open dialogue. One can speak freely only as long as they accept certain premises to be true such as our nation being ideologically superior to others and that we are the champions of truth, freedom and global justice.

Much of the constructive criticism I have of the industrial/military complex composed of both governmental and corporate forces I do not put in print or even utter. There is little I fear more than our government. We lead the world by a large margin in the percentage of the populace that is imprisoned. This makes little sense as our government is fond of praising our society and its citizens as being the most moral and humane on the planet.

Our government monitors and has a military presence in almost every land on the globe. The actions, words and policies of our government are becoming increasingly intolerant of any deviation from their global and domestic agendas. The judgmental noose of intolerance seems to be tightening quickly as even the most basic question falling way short of accusation is being labeled an act of terrorism, or an aid to terrorists.

Despite these concerns and reservations I remain hopeful that we can make structural changes that will usher in a high standard of living for all on the globe. We can choose to restructure the economic social system to not reward the conman, robber baron and outlaw mentality that became the basis of our “free enterprise” system. We can choose to tap into and use the bounty of the planet in a non-exploitative and competitive manner.

It is absurd to believe that we were able to get to the moon with the technology of the 1960s (the absolute beginning of computers, robotics, and the like), and we cannot create vehicles that get substantial gas mileage or use fuels that are non-polluting. Over thirty years ago I drove a car that got over 40 miles a gallon, and despite all the generations of technological progress that have occurred since, that same make of economy car actually gets poorer gas mileage.

Inventors and technological visionaries such as Buckminster Fuller have designed and documented ways in which we could create a sustainable high quality of life for all the inhabitants on the globe, and that the biggest obstacle to our implementing these changes is the “money making” hoarding mentality based on an outdated philosophy of inherent scarcity and the planet having insufficient resources for projected populace. In 1980 Buckminster Fuller noted that the earth receives more energy in a minute that humankind uses in a year. He also discussed how the ways in which the earth is inherently synergetic (energy expansive) and that in 1980 there already existed the means to use much of this energy in a regenerative manner.

Since relatively few people read my posts, I feel that I can remain off the radar of the power hungry and paranoid masters of society. And while I am losing freedoms and my quality of life is deteriorating, I can still appease my sense of ethical obligation and write the occasional post hinting at the sorrow and sense of loss that I sometimes feel.

Days like today I choose to confess my sins of omission by admitting my fears of our government and economic elite. Their security seems to depend on my accepting and indirectly supporting their lies and atrocities. Yet, even if I can’t stop them, at least I can say that I do not support their doing such things in my name and on my behalf.

In Our Name, On Our Behalf

Every day the air is poisoned on our behalf
Each day lands are bombed, and destroyed in our name
Every second water is contaminated on our behalf
Millions are made homeless in our name
Millions of animals are imprisoned and abused on our behalf
Each year cultures are humiliated and desecrated in our name
Thousands are tortured on our behalf

Millions have been starved on our behalf
Each day innocents are murdered in our name
Each day tons of waste are generated on our behalf
Nations riches will be robbed in our name
Millions are enslaved on our behalf
Each day people are raped and religiously persecuted in our name
Each day lethal lies are told on our behalf

Though the above will most likely continue
No longer in my name and not on my behalf
I say this with the little dignity I am afforded
Not in my name and not on my behalf

Please forgive me for staying quiet out of fear.

Jim Guido

Early History

While to many it seems as if tax payer bailouts of corporate incompetence and malfeasance is a rather recent phenomena a look at our nations past may prove otherwise. Similarly most would hazard to guess that our current gulf between the rich and poor in the US is also unprecedented. Yet, a brief look at our economic history seems to point to the fact that our current situation not only follows the norm, but seems to be sticking to the general history of the nation.

Before we take a look at the actions of our democratic capitalistic society it might be helpful to explain why the following history is seldom reported or acknowledged. While most presidential hopefuls just tow the party line, it is refreshing and perhaps enlightening to keep the following quote of a current candidate: “Truth is treason in an empire of lies.” – Ron Paul

In colonial times American freedom and political participation was based on land ownership. During the early years of this country only land owners could vote or be considered to be free and entitled to basic human rights and protection of law. The status of citizen being based on land ownership came from our European heritage since the medieval times.

In fact the term “real estate” stems from Spanish and Portuguese roots in which the word “real” means royal. In ancient Europe only lords and kings owned land. Royals awarded land to those who they felt would be of benefit to their safety and power, as soldiers, producers of food, arms, etc.

These underlings were given a title and a position of authority in exchange for their complete loyalty and service. The increasingly pampered life, honor code, and unwavering fidelity to king/lord/master rendered those of station to be of value and service to the king without being a threat to them (due to their pampered incompetence).

While it is true that England did not let the colonies break away without a struggle, it is also true that they were not willing to commit many troops or generals to America when France and Spain and the other ambitious warrior cultures were an immanent threat to their empire. The US won its political independence way before it won its economic independence.

The competition amongst European nations, royal families and even the church were limiting factors in terms of the power and wealth of any individual nation (entity). Though the America’s had indigenous peoples to conquer and defeat, their values were such that they were seldom in competition. Between war, law and disease the indigenous populations were quickly eradicated or, marginalized or contained by the ambitious American’s.

Soon the young American nation began to realize that it had almost unlimited frontiers. The westward expansion of the US took many decades. The land was abundant and diverse and relatively pristine and unused. While European land had been forested, mined and tilled for centuries, the new world had been left almost completely untapped.

While land travel and trade between districts in Europe were laden with tolls and tariffs, the American frontier was open and unrestrained. The competition and conflict between the European royal states took an economic and political toll on each nation, putting them at a huge disadvantage to the bustling United States. Without centuries of infrastructure and wear on the environment the US was able to capitalize and incorporate every new invention and industry with relative ease.

No nation on the planet was anywhere to being close to the US in terms of its ability to benefit from the industrial revolution. Its combination of natural resources such as coal, gold, iron, timber, fresh water, arable land, fish, furry animals, and open farm and cattle land was beyond the imagination of any European. It is hard to overstate the economic, political and resource advantage the US had over every other nation. It’s unique favored position was unparalleled and unprecedented.

While the high seas were about the only place an ambitious European could go to escape the control of the royals, the adventurous American had but a days travel westward to escape the control of the aristocracy. While in Europe the world of lawless cutthroat ambition was mainly on the high seas, in the US land pirates dominated the terrain as outlaws and robber barons.

Adam Smith’s view of free market capitalism with its self-regulating “laws” of supply and demand were highly dependent on the aforementioned honor code of the world of European aristocracy. Anyone who doubts this only need to read Adam Smith’s works to hear his concerns, warnings and requirements to insure that the system of capitalism functions correctly.

The wild west and the world of the robber barons had little use for honor in business and commerce. They were ruthless as the land was vast. The European aristocracy cited the prevalence and success of conmen as just one example of the new worlds lack of cultivation and breeding. As Oscar Wilde put it: America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.

A bountiful land during a time period of technological and industrial growth and invention is sure to flourish and the US rise in global wealth and productivity was very impressive. Families made fortunes in a few years which had taken centuries to acquire on “the continent”. The surge in technological growth afforded riches in both agriculture and industry. The Civil War had much to with the battle between the two titans of economic largesse (agriculture and industry).

Yet, despite all its advantages, natural opulence, and resource richness the US had more than its share of economic upheavals. Despite having no real adversaries to waste funds on defense, and a huge unified landmass with relatively no taxation and commercial interference the US had several severe economic recessions and depressions.

During the years leading up to the 20th century and the first decade of the 20th century the US was known as the land where fortunes could be made and lost. Since fortunes were gobbled up by businessmen and businesses the gap between those of wealth and those of poverty was huge. While free market capitalism had a lot to do with risk takers, the ambitious and the determined being able to amass fortunes, it also was a major impediment to that wealth being shared and the vast majority of people being either exploited or enslaved.

Managed Economies

In 1913 two major events occurred which would change the way America’s economy would function. The first was the origination of the federal reserve as the central bank of the US, and the second was the constitutional amendment instituting a national income tax. Neither is logically consistent with a democratic society or with free market capitalism. Since the US’s brand of capitalism was proving to be inconsistent at best and incompetent at worst, the pooling of money from the populace was seen as a way to help manage the economy, with the goal of strengthening and securing both the futures of government and business. The federal reserve in particular was designed by the US’s financial elite to help reduce competition and protect their interests and practices.

Despite the economic security offered by the taxing of the public a major depression arrived in a few years time. Yet, following that came a decade of financial excess where investing and gambling once again became almost synonymous. This was a time when even America’s working class started to dabble in becoming part of the investment class.

While WWI had positive and negative effects on the US economy, it greatly improved our world status as all European nations were weakened by its magnitude. The US became a creditor to Europe, a major arms supplier, and an investor in Central and South America.

The great depression once again showed that despite our resources, technological advancement, geographic safety, and emerging global creditor status our economy was still vulnerable and fragile. Our relatively short seven month involvement in WWI plus the fact that our land was not destroyed by bombs and warfare though giving us a tremendous advantage over our industrialized nations competition still did not prevent our capitalistic system from imploding.

During the depression banks loans all but stopped and jobs disappeared. The void was filled by the US government who put people to work and lent then money. The role and function of government expanded greatly and that of major business receded.

During WWII the US’s role as creditor and arms supplier became more and more pronounced. The manufacturing needs of WWII were unprecedented and the US was the only industrial land free of bombings to have their factories function at top production. Only one bombing occurred of a major US military base and that was Pearl Harbor in Hawaii which most people forget was still almost two decades from becoming a US state.

The US was the only industrial nation to emerge out of WWII stronger and more powerful than when it entered it. The US emerged from WWII as the world leader and almost every nation was either under direct US control or owed the US substantial amounts of money. The US government efforts at emerging out of the great depression were funded by the US taxpayer through income tax, war bonds, and charity. Many of the poorest of this nation gave their time freely out of patriotic pride, and many gave their life to help America become strong and defend freedom.

The Spoils of Empire

Through natural resource wealth, industrial and manufacturing capacity, land development, the spoils of war (repaid money from other nations), and the sponsor of industrial growth across the globe the US became the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the globe. In the 1950’s the standard of living of the American middle class became the envy of the world.

US businesses were quick to take over government factories and operations. The US citizen quickly adapted to its needed expanded role as consumer to support the growth and success of American businesses. Over the next two decades the US government spent a great deal of its energy into developing a military presence around the globe, once again funded through the US taxpayer. The US government also used taxpayer money as “foreign aid” to help other nations industrialize and become customers of US businesses.

Most American’s still view post WWII foreign aid as a humanitarian gesture to help supply the basic needs of our recovering allies and to rebuild destroyed infrastructure. While this was true the bulk of foreign aid was used for other purposes.

During the 50’s and 60’s their were laws which stated “foreign aid” was to be given first to US corporations and business entities doing business in the targeted nation. This meant that that US corporations who had established themselves in a nation receiving foreign aid could expect (be legally entitled) to receive the bulk of the funds available. Fortune 500 companies are not idiots and therefore, by the end of the 70’s nearly all of them had used these taxpayer subsidies to expand their businesses abroad. Obviously, many foreign businesses desiring/needing funds had to either develop a businesses relationship becoming a functional front for US corporations or be completely bought out by US interests.

Yet, the above only outlines the the ways that the US taxpayer was used for the benefit of US corporations. Not only did we fund and subsidize their foreign operations, but US corporations could tap into another substantial tax payer subsidized pool of money awarded for the purpose of covering advertising costs for US corporations abroad. Since these companies had offices and even headquarters abroad they also were able to use their foreign presence to reduce if not completely avoided paying US income tax.

So to summarize US corporations and banks which failed to loan money, provide jobs and assist the struggling US working class during the great depression were able to take over and buy out government interests after WWII. They were then over the next two decades able to have the US taxpayer fund and subsidize the expansion and success of these same corporations through foreign aid and other entitlement programs. Many of these operations could and did in fact either replace US jobs, or cause unfair competition practices for US workers.

Yet, despite these advantages plus all the other advantages of resources, invention, empire, military might, etc. the US still found itself in another financial crisis in the stagflation of the 70’s. When Reagan introduced the wonders of trickle down economics American’s were unaware that they had already been subsidizing the government for four decades and Corporate America for two decades.

More Pie for Me

Due to my desire to keep this post from becoming way too long, I have not gone into depth regarding the role invention has played in padding our economic advantages. No nation was better positioned to benefit from the automobile as the US, yet many books have been written on the commercial and economic boon caused by advances in communication, transportation, energy, agriculture, electronics, health and medicine, materials, automation, and space exploration, just to name a few.

As an interesting story which casts some light on the role of big business and its relations to workers and capitalism. In 1953 Walter Reuther, then president of the United Auto Workers, made a revolutionary discovery regarding the nature of profit in business. Using the new field of computer programmers he discovered that the computers proved that General Motors would stand to make record profits if they granted union demands for unheard of higher pay, plus unprecedented vacation, health, and life time benefits. When GM’s computer programmers verified the information, GM granted the unions requests, which resulted in GM becoming within three years of the new contract the first US corporation to achieve a billion dollar profit (even after taxes) with steady growth occurring for the next 20 years.

Despite the data supporting the benefits of sharing the wealth and more equal distribution, the theory and functioning of capitalism is on maximizing relative wealth through competition and the lowering of overhead. Market capitalism is based on competition not cooperation, and relative wealth (disparity) is the true mark of success and the result of competition. Somewhere along the line GM realized that they could further maximize profits by not honoring the deferred payment aspects of workers contracts by using up and reneging on retirement plans.

Over the last two to three decades, compared with other industrial nations, the standard of living and quality of life of American’s have been declining. In many ways the American standard of living is declining in comparison to its own standard of living prior to the 1980’s. The nations that have surpassed the American’s in standard of living, health, life expectancy, education and other accepted measures of quality of life, have done so through social policies regarded as being in conflict with capitalism and free enterprise. Those “emerging and third world nations” which take our loans and follow our directives are not experiencing the growth of standard of living and quality of life as those who are attempting to remain sovereign nations from a policy standpoint and who are likewise instituting social welfare style programs.

The US corporate community hides behind their myths regarding “globalization” as a smokescreen of their role in the failings of capitalism and the steady decline in the American standard of living and quality of life. The loss of American jobs to cheap labor has been going on for decades ever since the 50’s. It isn’t so much that we are being replaced as workers and consumers by the global community, but more that we are no longer needed as consumers.

The capabilities and extent to which automation is used is grossly understated. The truth of the matter we don’t have anywhere near the need for 6 billion jobs. In fact, we don’t truly have a need for a small fraction of that number, and each and every day advancements in automation, robotics, electronics, and artificial intelligence are making more and more jobs obsolete and an unnecessary business expense.

The so called economic rebound is not due to the exploding middle class in China and India, the bulk of their populaces are still decades away from replacing us as consumers. The rebound in profits is more the reduction of overhead in firing workers, not building new factories, and the liquidation of assets. The real profit is attained by corporation getting either direct bailout money, or loans at unprecedented low interest rates and their using that money in stocks and other financial instruments.

As trillions of dollars are printed and handed to a precious few, the rest of us either economically stagnate or suffer a reduction in pay rate or working hours. With interest rates near zero, it doesn’t really matter how much money you owe. It will only matter when interest rates rise, and the federal reserve has already promised to hold interest rates down until the end of 2013 if not longer.

Just by being tax payers we are falling more into debt with each dollar printed. As the national debt climbs the majority of us will owe more in terms of the national debt than our net worth, regardless of whether we have any personal debt.

The US through the vehicle of modern free market capitalism has squandered its inherent wealth and resources and is busy squandering that of the entire globe. It has exploited and then squandered the potential wealth and human benefits of the greatest advance in human inventiveness and technology ever witnessed. It is engaged in poisoning and destroying the very bounty on which its temporary wealth was predicated on, and due to its outdated economic concepts is prohibiting and ruining the use of all the emerging technology which could create a standard of living dwarfing that of even our wealthiest citizens.

The Myth in Sum

The competitive free market system has not created wealth, but only exploited and used it up. The wealth of our planet was provided by nature but recognized and utilized by man through his creativity, inventiveness and resourcefulness. As has been noted many times necessity is often the mother of invention. Need and problem solving have always spurred on invention and technological advancement not capitalism. Capitalism was the beneficiary and not the cause of the inventions which led to improvements in our quality of life.

Yet, we now have learned that comfort as well as the struggle for survival can foster invention and creativity. Leisure and comfort can often provide the mental space and freedom for people to envision and create the possible, oftentimes yesterday’s dreams become today’s realities. Likewise todays dreams could become tomorrows realities.

Capitalism is neither the cause not the necessary evil partnered with progress and technological advancement. I hope that you can glean from this article that capitalism has been as much as an obstacle as a vehicle for advancements in our standard of living and quality of life.

The greatest myth we have in our society is that government is inherently inefficient and to blame for all the limitations and problems of free market capitalism. A look at economic history shows that capitalism has been quite inefficient and incompetent on its own, and if anything the US government through tax payer and printed funds has been the savior/enabler of a highly dysfunctional economic system. I would also add, that qualities such as being selfish, exploitative, chronically mendacious, sociopathic, and compulsive are markers for success in capitalism, while compassion, fairness and ethics are limiters and detriments to success.

Another significant myth is that we have recently started down the road of bailing out large and incompetent banks and businesses. The truth of the matter is that the American taxpayer has been underwriting, bailing out, and subsidizing business incompetence for over 70 years, with no end in sight.

The Politics of Wealth Extraction and Transfer

The culture of corporate bailouts and the ritualistic extraction and transfer of wealth from the planet and its people into the hands of the few runs deep in our society. Here is a short summary of one of its major blood lines.

The powerful role of lobbyist and special interest groups in American politics in often mentioned, let’s take a look at one of the ways they function. Political campaigns are expensive and politicians believe that there electability often depends on getting more donations than their opponents. The majority of money raised from campaigns comes from large donors and not the average tax payer.

The money donated to a candidate through special interest groups is an investment which is designed to pay dividends in the future. Since most are familiar with the large political donations of Jewish interests supporting the Israeli government we will take such an enterprise as a fictitious example. We could take many others, but this particular relationship is easy for me to hypothesize from.

Let’s say a special interest group for an allied nation such as Israel donates with the expectation or the hope that their financial support will be rewarded in-kind. A politician who feels their current and future electability is dependent on the continued financial and political support of their donor, will most likely try to please their donor and meet their needs and goals.

I chose this scenario because one of the largest and most blatant uses of tax payer money is in defense and military expenses. Along with the intelligence community military expenditures are often the most vague and unregulated due to reasons of “national security”.

One single contract for military hardware such as fighter planes, missiles, ships, or even heavy armaments can run into several billion dollars. As a practical example the cost of the new missile defense system we gave to Israel far outstrips the donations made on Israel’s behalf for many years. Yet, we know the military largesse gained through our business dealings with Israel is astronomical for both Israel and the Pentagon (and the American companies their contract with).

We’ve all heard stories of the unbelievable price tags placed on Pentagon purchases. While many of these are for high tech machines which are hard to place a fair price tag on, we also know that basic supplies such as lights and toilet paper can carry the most outrageous of price tags. The logical reason our Pentagon would be willing to charge and purchase such prices is because it is purchase with tax payer money.

When it comes to military and defense spending the US taxpayer is the kitty, and the government and all the special interest groups are the fiscal beneficiaries. I think it is safe to say that the defense department is the largest and most untouchable vehicle for the extraction and transfer of individual wealth from the citizens (tax base) to the favored corporate and banking elite.

Between the ever escalating national debt which bails out and subsidizes the wealthy corporate financial sector and the defense department whose trillions of dollars goes to “Non Governmental Organizations” (NGO’s) the transfer of wealth is occurring at an astounding rate. Since much of the money siphoned to corporations (NGO’s) and financial entities is printed (created) just for that purpose our relative wealth is being wiped out with our tacit consent. Every dollar printed that goes to the few reduces the relative net-worth of all the other people.

Such stealth ways of extracting and transferring wealth unnecessary and in fact allows many of the largest beneficiaries to whine and belly ache about how much more they are expected to pay in taxes than the average person. It is interesting to note that those who are not only receiving a free lunch, but also breakfast and dinner and a little spending money to boot, are the one’s doing the most complaints about the entitlement programs such as social security which the government extracted from worker’s paychecks and was used to bail out corporate incompetence and malfeasance.

The stock market rally over the last two to three years has been fueled by the trillions of dollars given to save incompetent businesses who were deemed to big to fail, and printed and loaned out at historically low interest rates to the financial elite. While those low interest rates insure that the incompetent businessmen and their corporations enjoy record profits it also prevents retirees and those on a fixed income from being able to live off interest and dividends. This forces millions of Americans out of safe investments and into riskier one’s such as the stock market.

With so many being forced into the stock market as a way to avoid poverty and hopefully have enough money till their death, the most devastating and tragic extraction and transfer of wealth is soon to occur. In the very near future it is very likely that a severe but inevitable stock market decline will wipe out the remaining paltry wealth of millions of Americans. Many of whom have been the most loyal and devoted of citizens espousing the glories of the very capitalism which will leave them bankrupt as well as their children.

What Can Be Done?

In a word: Everything.

The problem is that the medicine we’ve been taking is the very cause of the disease. Our economy is sick because of free market capitalism. The longer we continue to take the poison the longer and harder our recovery. Our rise in the standard of living was due to our natural resources, ingenuity, sweat, advances in medicine and technology and partaking in the spoils of empire. There have been previous empires during times of progress which have improved the standard of living of many of its citizens, and they were not capitalistic societies. And their way of economic and political life seemed wonderful until the fall of the empire.

We could be like every other empire and have our lifestyle decay with its decline, or we could use rather than exploit the still incredible resources which our science has identified. We are just learning of the ways our sun produces and transfers energy to our planet. Our planet turns this sun energy into other forms of energy such as food (foliage, fish and animal life), wind, water power, etc. Years ago we had no knowledge of the incredible amount of energy contained in a single atom.

If we were to stop needing to only use energy which we can make a profit off of, to place a meter on and to limit and distribute it for capitalistic ventures, and instead freely use the energy for one and all, we would quickly be able to produce more than enough energy for our needs. Some of this centuries greatest minds such as Buckminster Fuller have expressed great confidence that the solutions already exist and only have to be implemented. These people state that the energy and food needs of the planet can be met without damage to the environment while making the current standard of living of our current elite look modest in comparison.

This is not a fantasy or a dream. Yet, it also is not a utopia. It is just a step in the right direction just like every other step civilization has taken improving the quality of life for those on the planet. This time though it could be done in such a manner as to respect the integrity of nature rather than harming and exploiting nature.

There is much of our society and history of which we can be proud and have no need to change. We can choose to restructure our economic social system in a way that doesn’t reward the robber baron, conman, and outlaw mentality which became the successful mentality of our “free enterprise” system without becoming fundamentally different people. We can build a successful and plentiful society that is based on our higher ideals of trust, care and community and not one based on fear, hatred and an outdated model of the fight for survival.

One guidepost is for us to make decisions based on what is beneficial rather than what is profitable. Such a subtle shift of emphasis could have immense benefits. Many of our solutions will be accomplished in such a simple way. To paraphrase something I said earlier, today’s visions become tomorrows realities, let’s have a vision worthy of becoming tomorrow’s reality.

Yet, one thing is for certain and that is the process of wealth extraction and transfer is a fact and it is occurring. Our next road, no matter what it is, will be hard to begin until we demand that this current path is ended and not just detoured to once again benefit the few in the name of the many.

Jim Guido

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Guido

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And later in the same article.

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

In another article I found:

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

Another factoid I found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Guido

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Guido

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

I recently read a book entitled Money and Psychotherapy that pointed out how specifics regarding people’s financial situation are seldom ever addressed in therapy. A major point of the book was to say that there is a taboo in therapy regarding any investigative discussion on money, and that this taboo reflects a general avoidance of personal finance discussion in everyday life.

When reading the book I thought about how many taboos we have in our culture regarding typical conversation between friends and associates. In fact it is hard to think of a topic of conversation that doesn’t have restrictions on what can be shared. There are taboos and restrictions on open dialogues about sex, religion, politics, ethics, government, law, desire, fantasy, parenting and education just to name a few.

Sometimes it is acceptable to have a general discussion about one of these topics with a group of like minded individuals, or we can tolerate a quick professing of strongly held beliefs. Yet, usually these conversations are more an opportunity for individuals to state or express their opinions and beliefs and are not usually forums for a true exchange of ideas.

In general our society has many rules regarding “polite” or “civilized” conversation. Topics which are emotionally powerful, full of personal significance or socially important are not considered appropriate for daily dialogue and more often than not are considered to be “private issues”.

I will readily admit that personal realities, set beliefs and certainties are rather fruitless topics of conversation. At best one can express these views, but since they are fixed and rigid they are by definition not useful for conversation or dialogue. Yet, as growing changing human beings there should be much of our lives which we are exploring and learning in which shared dialogue would be helpful and productive.

While my distaste for typical social conversation is stronger than most, I seldom meet a person who finds most social and party conversation satisfying. Most people express some form of emptiness or lack in the quality of most social conversation, yet feel the sense of community outweighs the deficits.

The taboos and rules regarding what can be discussed in one-on-one or small group conversation are far less restrictive. While there is an openness and even sometimes a willingness for self-disclosure and an articulation of one’s personal reality, there still exists a substantial resistance to a frank exchange of ideas or working through opposing perceptions.

I myself find even the best of friends can have a relatively small threshold and tolerance of meaningful or explorative conversation. Even my intimate life long friends who used to energetically engage in these type of conversations in high school and college, now find it difficult to delve for more than a few minutes before seeking a distraction.
I do find my thirst for meaningful conversation has stayed strong through out the years. My closest friends are very appreciative of the quality of our conversations and often express regret that they don’t have “these type” of conversations more often. Yet, when it comes down to it, they honor the taboos and inhibitions of socially accepted discourse.

Over the last few years I’ve noticed an aggressive nature to the avoidance of intimate or meaningful dialogue, and that is to make the desire for meaningful dialogue into a pathology or a sign of social ineptness. Now, efforts to engage in meaningful or emotionally invested discussion are rebuffed as a sign of a person’s “inability to read social cues” or their honesty as “a lack of social filters”.

I have worked many years with people on the Autism Spectrum and so I’m quite aware of individuals who have neurological deficits that limit their ability to read social situations, or to see things from another’s perspective. Yet, now people are now using this fact as a defense mechanism in rationalizing their resistance or discomfort with intimate dialogue.

In a future post I hope to talk more on the role inhibitions play on limiting our basic drive towards intimacy. Those willing to learn more of my thoughts regarding intimacy, should go to the words section of this website and read my book “Exploring Intimacy”.

Yet, in this post I only want to conclude by once again emphasizing my sadness at the lack of intimate and meaningful conversation allowed by social protocol and conventions. The taboos we have restricting meaningful interchange strip our social world from much of the richness it has to offer. Of course, one is free to express these things in the arts, such as I do in lyric, song and books. Yet, life and experience could be so much richer if our society encouraged meaningful exchange thereby allowing us to more fully benefit by the perspective, experience and energy of others in an immediate fashion.

It is a shame that our wonder of the world and depth of our experience often is expected to stay mute. There is so little time, and so much richness to share, and almost every individual I know possesses so many gems that, do to social conventions, stay hidden from my eyes.

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