June 30, 2009

Tax and Raid

Water has been sold to the public. Fictitious capital has been sold to the public. And now a lot of hot air is being sold to the public, literally.

The newly passed cap and trade bill in Congress will suck out the remaining industrial output of America. The bill, over 1000 pages, was not read by politicians, nor was it even mentioned in the public forum, other than it's passing. Proponents of the law market it as crucial environmental regulation, but it is nothing of the sort, just as the patriot act wasn't about security or fighting terrorism.

The passage of the bill amounts to a further deindustrialization of America. Matt Taibbi, who recently exposed the clandestine operations of Government Sachs throughout the firm's hisotry in Rolling Stone, calls the law "a windfall for Wall Street," because it basically creates a new commodities market in which the companies that pushed for the law will stand to profit enormously.

June 28, 2009

Modern Politics 101

Candidate A goes around the country, mostly on the edges, guaranteeing jobs. He is a Democrat. He enters politics to gain wealth, but most of all, status. Apparently, they're not enlightened on what political status really means, or maybe they liked to be called whores and thieves. In any other workplace that knowledge would have to be admitted by the person, not co-workers or the public and that requires personal reflection and honesty.

Candidate B goes around the country, rarely overstepping the bible swamps, guaranteeing security. They call him a Republican. He is already rich, so he goes into politics only to solidify and protect his wealth. And to condemn.

Candidate C goes around the country, visiting every neighborhood, guaranteeing both jobs and security, but is laughed at, and gets called a commie pinko. He genuinely loves public service, and he knows more than you, the voter, and he thinks this is an accomplishment. Strangely, for all his world-is-one visionary beliefs, his only comrades are those who see the world as he does.

Candidate D goes around the country, but only stopping by comfort zones, guaranteeing neither jobs or security, he too is laughed at, and gets called a libertarian kook. He decides to join the political haystacks out of spite, or sometimes he is pushed in reluctantly. And if he wants your money or votes, you wouldn't know. The constitution is his bible, literally. Other than that, he is a free thinker.

All Candidates cater to the public. It's their job, and votes are like tips for them - the more, the better, but they receive their real salaries from the paymasters. As a voter you get what you ordered, but you can only select from the menu. It's a funny relationship, politicians are like waiters, smiley face and all, and voters are like eaters, very, very generous eaters. Financial traders and politicians are alike, both being know for their salesmen persona. One is a speculator of stocks, and the other is a speculator of flocks. Both involve fraud, and dupes.

Voter A looks at a candidate from all angles - front, back and side, and if he resembles his own features then he votes for him.

Voter B watches the campaign from afar, is informed on the issues by word of mouth and a loud fascist on the radio whom he trusts. Come voting day, he looks at the poll in the day's newspaper and votes for whomever is number one.

Voter C is deeply engaged in the issues, watches the propaganda news show that appeals most to his prejudice , becomes seriously angered at the oppositional candidate(the one who is not looked on favorably by the loudest talking head) and actively participates throughout the campaign. He casts his vote early in the morning, before everybody else is at the polls, and by accident he fills in the oppositional candidate's box.

Voter D goes with the brand rather than the product. If you have a good brand, odds are you'll always have his vote, even if you repeatedly lie to him and steal from his cheque.

All Voters realize that money trumps politics. They know lobbyists bribe politicians, they are not that stupid. But they believe that they too can bribe politicians, but with votes. In rare circumstances, votes are in fact more appealing than money to politicians, so voters know it's a gamble. If politicians are indeed whores, then voters are just unsuccessful pimps.

And then there is the rest of us. We don't do electoral politics. Or revolution. For the longest time we've been quiet, mad and depressed because that is what waking up entails, until the end of time, or until we figure out that there is no more time left, or that there was never any time. Our politics, if it ever dawns, will eclipse all the wrongheaded and wronghearted decisions made in the past one hundred years. But we, unlike the voters, the politicians, and the paymasters, don't believe in ourselves. Somehow, we think everything is going to turn out right in the end. Maybe we are waiting for destiny to strike, or until the encroachment of our freedoms and humanity become so blatant that even the asleep masses will respond to the darker truths of the powers behind America by saying 'duh', instead of brushing it off as they do now. But that is unlikely to happen because tyranny in its first stages is always a conspiracy and as Huxley said, people will learn to love their servitude and actively participate in their own undoing. So, voters and dupes will always be with us. Thus, we can't count on collective power to help us recover from this Armageddon. It all comes down to individual power, and a leader who takes that first step, letting everybody know that the sheriff is back in town.

June 26, 2009

The Tainted King, Dead at 50

American poet Robert Bly wrote "We have a remarkable ability for forgetfulness, ingenious methods for not being present, a delicious capacity for oblivion. Forgetting the shocks of childhood, our nature, our destiny, our desire, and all those tasks which our soul actually come in this world." Thankfully, for us, the King of Pop never forgot the shocks of his childhood, or of others. His greatest trait was his innocence, he always remained playful and in touch with the wonder of the world. Many people associate his sensitive and childish outlook on life with sexual wrong doing with minors. I have no words for them.

Because of a malicious press the King will always be tainted, no matter the lack of factual proof of the charges peppered against him. During Michael's reign as King of pop culture, the press invited the most vile type of skepticism about the intentions of the true artist that he was, and completely blacked out the type of skepticism that is required of a healthy republic. It was a scandal-ridden age, but the real scandals were happening in the powerful lobbies in Washington and in Goldman's offices on Wall Street, not in Michael Jackson's bedroom in Neverland.

The press is the guilty party, it never covers power and questions authority, rather, it's sole role is to subdue and distract the public. Tarnishing careers, and bringing down stars is also part of the business. Regardless if he is a king with a poet's heart, the press does not not know respect, or the sacredness of genius. Only fear and money motivates them, not love, grief or any form of human sympathy. The press does not know any boundaries, except for it's owners and journalists. Everybody else be damned, including the King of Pop.

That Michael Jackson continued to shine despite all the hate is a testament to him as a human being. More than just active legs, he possessed an active heart and remained humble in the face of adoring fans. A true gift to humanity. Yet, there are still doubts, largely in America, about his sincerity as a human being. Sadly, these doubts are more of a reflection of American society and the mindless press than the life of Michael Jackson. He was a troubled human being, but all artists are, especially the great ones, and Michael was the greatest.

"Untroubled, innocent, and somnambulistic creation," Goethe said, "is the only way to make great things flourish, and that is no longer possible at all. Our talents today lie on the salver of the public notice. Nothing sound can thrive because of the critical press which appear daily in fifty different places and because of the public gossip which they engender. Today the man is lost who does not completely avoid all that by forcibly isolating himself." He was referring to poets and literary artists, but his observation holds true for all artists and all ages hence. They say Michael Jackson was a recluse, as if Michael Jackson lived an ordinary life. Describing famous individuals as recluse when they choose to retreat from the spotlight is simply a dumb conclusion. The King went into exile not on his own terms but because of a ferocious press who rained down poison that eventually became a tsunami. Can any human being withstand this onslaught, let alone a sensitive and tender spirit like Michael Jackson? Put his idiosyncrasies aside and don't be a critic for a minute.

Way before his sudden death, the press and the public killed him softly. As a result, his name will forever be tainted, and it is truly sad. His art, however, will live through the generations and will be assessed favorably by the fairest of all judges, time.

Some say he was taken at a young age, but he was also given the immensities of life at a young age. The most remarkable thing about Michael Jackson is that he remained a child to the end, a true child of God. Not an immature child that America has enough of, but a child who endured tremendous distress throughout his life and still produced the most trailblazing art in pop history.

Bly, describing the identity and archetype of the King, says it is not about heroism but failure and repair, not as much ascending but descending. Michael Jackson lived in the age when the divinity of the King was doubted, and unfortunately for him, the crown was put on his shoulders - and he couldn't bear it. HIS embodiment of an unusual King in the popular psyche for three decades is a reminder to all of us that happiness is not guaranteed, not even in America. His death, tragic and deeply moving, is a cause for grief, but hopefully it is the type of grief that will bring a greater maturity to the public opinion about Michael Jackson and to the culture itself.

Eternally grieving, however, is not healthy. By celebrating his life, and most of all his work, we can assure that this King, unlike those of the past, will live on forever. Nietzsche famously said that he would only believe in a God that knows how to dance, and Michael Jackson, embodying the holy shrine of the King who represents God on Earth, answered his doubts by dancing better than all men.

Men of genius often have short lives because they live more in 50 years than most can live in a century. The Death and Life of Michael Jackson, both so shocking, needs to be accepted. Denial of both his divinity and genius by the suspecting public, and of his graceless departure by obsessed fans, reflects the same roots of unbelief.

Bly made note of two aspects of what he called 'The Immense Mother' - the Virgin Mary, who embodies life, and the Baby Yaga, the devouring mother head. And he says that the rejection of both of these mother figures reveals a childlike madness. The fact that Michael Jackson was taken from the world when he was preparing for his comeback is a reaffirmation of nature's most basic principle: life is sacred, and can be taken away at any moment.

We can never know the reality of Michael Jackson's psyche, or his painful alertness of himself in a hostile world. We can only get an impression of the man from those he held dear, his friends and family. Anything else is mere speculation for the chattering heads. But one thing is for sure. The pop of the ultimate bubble boy who died in the biggest bubble of all represents the end of an era in music and culture. An end of Pop.

For now, the throne is empty. To celebrate his passing, play Billie Jean, put on your dancing shoes and give the man peace, at last, in death. After all, a true child of God belongs in God's very own Neverland.

My two favorite Michael Jackson songs:

June 22, 2009

Mr. Obama: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

In a new interview with CBS's Harry Smith, Obama responded to pressure on the right that he is not doing all he can to support the protesters in Iran, and criticized Cheney's stance on national security and foreign policy.
SMITH: People in this country say you haven't said enough; that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street -- to which you say?

OBAMA: To which I say: The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran, who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing.

We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard. What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to, I think, what Dr. King called "the arc of the moral universe." It's long, but it bends towards justice. [...]

SMITH: Leon Panetta intimated the former vice president was playing politics with national security issues. The former president has intoned his own displeasure with some of your policy changes. I think they feel like some of the things that you've done, in fact, are treacherous.

OBAMA: Well, I think when it comes to Vice President Cheney, he and I have a deep disagreement about what's required to keep the American people safe. And I think that disagreement has been amply aired and certainly he has a right to voice his opinions. I would argue that our policies are making the American people safer, and that some of the policies that he's promoted in the past have not.
It's still a shock to see the smug on Obama has not worn off yet since it oozes off him so profusely. Lucky for him, new smug is being shipped in by the truckload to the White House garage.

By his statements, he is showing to the American people that he is playing his cards right, who have no idea that the table has been set up in advance. Remember Casino Royale? The table is always set beforehand.

The post-election hostilities inside Iran between the largely conservative government and a sizable fraction of the young liberals were aroused, to a large extent, by American intelligence forces. If only the CIA could stimulate the US economy the way they stimulated conflict inside Iran because they're damn sure good at it. And why wouldn't they be? Their pros. They have all the money in the world, literally. And so much criminal experience to boot.

In his most recent article on the Iranian election fallout called, Iran Falls to US PSYOPS, Paul Craig Roberts writes:
We are now witnessing in Tehran US “attempts to foment a popular revolution” in the guise of another CIA orchestrated “color revolution.” It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.” It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands.

The Mousavi protests have set up Iran either for a US puppet government or for a military strike. The mullahs are in a lose-lose situation. Even if the mullahs hold together and suppress the protests, the legitimacy of the Iranian government in the eyes of the outside world has been damaged. Obama’s diplomatic approach is over before it started. The neocons and Israel have won.

The US intervention and the orchestrated disinformation pumped out by the western media are so transparent that it is impossible to believe than any informed person or government is taken in. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.
It is war, pure and simple. Call it a proxy war or a covert war, but war is war. And sadly the Iranian people are once again in the middle of it. The reactionary and oppressive mullahs on one end, and imperialist jackals on the other. If MLK Jr is right in believing that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, then god willing, both of these devilish actors will be written off in this long Iranian drama, once and for all. I pray that the bravery of the rebels is matched by their intelligence and foresightedness. I have faith that if they remain diligent and honorable then they will secure a truly independent Iran, free from religious tyrants and hostile foreign invaders.

But I'm not convinced that all will turn right in the end. All throughout history there has been an over abundance of useless idiots, and I'm afraid that the participants in these demonstrations, aside from the key leaders, are indeed that; useless idiots who are unaware of the greater interests involved. The sophisticated operation carried out by the CIA, Mossad and a large portion of the Western media is extraordinary, but they are not masterminds.

And what's this talk by Obama of bearing witness? Imperialists dogs have been given free reign inside Iran by the White House for two summers. Shame on Obama. If he was a serious president he would call back the dogs and put a leash around them with a tag that says Corroborators in Action. Or better yet, Criminals in Action.

The president is not a Muslim, that's been proven, but he is also not a Christian. He has failed to uphold one of the ten commandments; Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

June 21, 2009

I Hear the Drums of War

It seems like the drums of war are being lined up on Capitol Hill, once again. They don't have to be dusted off which should save some time. If the Ayatollah regime chooses to intensify the suppression of a large faction of it's peoples desires and dreams, then expect calls for direct military intervention by the rash hypocrites in Congress. Of course, it will be under the pretext of 'saving Iranian lives from the life-suffocating regime'. And they will certainly be joined by Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, cheerleading Neo-Cons, the oppressive media, and then finally, after much pressure, Superman himself-- the United States President. The beauty of it all is that liberals and conservatives alike will buy the reasons for war, as they have in the past.

At first, Obama will play it cool, and pretend to be the ever reflective and cautious statesman that he is. But as the drums of war get louder and louder, he will send in America's finest to another bleeding hot spot in the Middle East. That will make four countries--Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Iran--that the Empire's resources will be dedicated to. Forget health care for all, the bottom-up economy, energy independence, or any other kind of reform, all eyes will be on War in the Middle East. More excuses will be made by the lying cowards in Congress, and more lies will be sung by the spying cowards in the oppressive media.

But that I make clear that this war will be fought for liberty?

All hail liberty!

Amerika: The only country where the politicians act like global revolutionaries, and the people act like bureaucrats. It is historical and political irony at its greatest; a nation who thinks it is the world's liberator is in reality the world's policeman and biggest tyrant.

I.F Stone, who died twenty years ago, poignantly asked in 1966 in an article called, Why We Fail as Revolutionaries, as the war in Vietnam was escalating:
How often can intelligent and well-meaning Americans see glamorous 'revolutionary' programs collapse into teh same old repression without noticing there is something fundamentally wrong?
All the anti-war democrats will also join the fray and stamp their approval for military intervention in Iran. And this shouldn't at all surprise anyone who has been constantly engaged in this insane reality; intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and in every other way.

Back in April 2006, Jim Lobe wrote about the Neo-Cons' call for direct and indirect confrontation with Iran on Antiwar.com:
Led by a familiar clutch of neoconservative hawks, major right-wing publications are calling on the administration of President George W. Bush to urgently plan for military strikes – and possibly a wider war – against Iran in the wake of its announcement this week that it has successfully enriched uranium to a purity necessary to fuel nuclear reactors.
Have we forgotten that the Neo-Con craze is still in our system? One of them was just recently hired by the Washington Post, just in time to beat the war drums once more. And men like Andrew Sullivan and those of his ilk will again participate in the rally for war, just as they did in the past. Do you see a pattern here? These are greatly uninformed men who are not inherently anti-war. Their opinions hold no weight, they fluctuate with the political winds, and they should never be listened to. Absolutely Never.

In the same article by Lobe, he writes:
While Kristol insisted that the "credible threat of force" should initially be used in support of diplomacy with Washington's European allies, he also called for "stepping up intelligence activities, covert operations, special operations, and the like," as well as "operational planning for possible military strikes."

What he had in mind was laid out in a companion article by ret. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a member of the ultra-hawkish Iran Policy Committee (IPC), entitled "Target: Iran."

If Iran resists diplomatic pressure, according to McInerney, Washington should be prepared to carry out a "powerful air campaign" led by 60 stealth aircraft, and more than 400 non-stealth strike aircraft with roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft, 100 unmanned aerial vehicles, and 500 cruise missiles to take out some 1,500 nuclear-related and military targets.

Before or during such an attack, he wrote, "a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy." The IPC has long advocated support for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iraq-based paramilitary group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department.
If you thought the insanity was over when Bush left the White House doors, think again. The real insanity has just begun. Mass delusion triggered by brash conclusions.

And if you really believe all the lies, that the election was a massive fraud, and that America is going to war to liberate the captive Iranians, then read this prescient truth uttered by Izzy in the same article mentioned above:
Though everybody from LBJ down constantly talks of social revolution, the record shows our real concern is with putting it down, not bringing it about. We like to talk about revolution, but we rush in helicopters and naplam when it threatens to break out. This is the real face of the Pax Americana we are trying to impose.

June 20, 2009

"Mark my words." - VP Joe Biden

Here is the transcript, with an extra portion that is not included in the video above:
Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s gonna have to make some really tough – I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you, not financially to help him, we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they’re made if they work, then they weren’t viewed as a crisis. If they don’t work, it’s viewed as you didn’t make the right decision, a little bit like how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that maybe didn’t have to lose lives. It’s how we made a mistake in Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there’s gonna be some tough decisions. They may emanate from the Middle East. They may emanate from the sub-continent. They may emanate from Russia’s newly-emboldened position because they’re floating in a sea of oil.”

It's been exactly five months since Obama's historic inauguration. Aside from pirate hunting off the coast of Somalia, the civilian killing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, nothing of major geopolitical importance has happened in Obama's brief time in office. Until now. The hostilities in Iran between an influential faction of the people and the regime is escalating every day. Blood is pouring in the streets...and the tragedy is that it may in fact be the generated crisis that Biden alluded to on the campaign trail. This could become Obama's Bay of Pigs.

The remarks below, made by Obama earlier today, shows he is watching his step, and choosing his words carefully. Mentioning MLK Jr, though, is a little inappropriate, since the protesters are acting more like Malcolm X. And good on them. I'm a Malcolm X fan myself, though, I admit, MLK's non-violent strategy is more effective in gaining the sympathies of all men and winning the long fight.

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

In Search of Solid Ground

American media coverage of the demonstrations, violence, and overall activity in Iran is bizarre to say the least. The prospect of revolution has riled up ordinary tame American minds and infused them to look at the situation in Iran with a sense of extreme urgency. As if change for the better can only happen now or never. Strangely, the coverage of American politics is wavering every day and the indifference of many journalists to their own government is all too comical. It is safe to say that very dramatic and consequential decisions are being made by the White House as we speak, such as increasing the powers of the private Federal Reserve Bank, and yet, not even a murmur sounds from the media. So I must ask, where are the battle cries for your own freedoms, America? Forget Iran, what is your destiny?

Into the Rabbit Hole

As I collect and chronicle my thoughts and impressions on the volatility inside Iran, I have to keep in mind the one truth that carries so much weight in times of crisis and it is a quote by Mark Twain: "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."

I have no doubts that the men and women in Iran aspiring for freedom are patriots. They are gentle but deeply serious souls, but I can't wish them the best of luck, not in these circumstances. Wild energies are moving the course of history in Iran, some are inborn and from the culture itself, and some are sparked by foreign intrusion and malevolence. Wide-eyed theories inspired not by facts but by sentiments cannot explain the crisis in Iran.

The German historian Oswald Spengler wrote that “the mark of the great crisis is its innumerable passionate questionings and probings." Even before the advent of mass propaganda utilized by state and corporate resources, there was the oppression of the Press. After the middle of the century, television has become the engine that shapes and forms reality, leaving people dumbfounded about the true reality of politics, the world, and themselves.

All this propaganda has created a state of consternation in people, and out of desperation they have sunk into paranoia. And this is true, most of all, to mainstream society and 'serious' journalists are not immune to groundless speculation either. But their theorizing, unlike ours, is already done for them. For example, Saddam harboring WMDs was a conspiracy theory, and so was the 9/11 front story.

Doubting any official narrative that is not set out by oppressive media marks you out as an outcast and part of the unstable fringe. It is an unspoken truth that thinkers and philosophers of my age are called conspiracy theorists. When the former child-president, as HST called him, said "let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories," what he essentially meant was "let us not tolerate philosophy," for theorizing and doubting is the very essence of philosophy. Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset in the last century remarked that "in attendance at the birth and rebirth of philosophy there is always only one Good Fairy, and she is the ugliest of all: Doubt." So in the tradition of the great philosophers of the West, from Descartes down to Gasset, let us doubt!

Deeper Into the Rabbit Hole

In the Asia Times in July 2005, Trish Schuh in an article called, The American hand in Iran, reported on the activities of the CIA and its regime-change program throughout the evil-laden places of the world. She laid out some of the CIA's history of such practices and their intentions for regime change in Iran:
In a May 5 Financial Times article, "US offers grants to help oppose clerics", Guy Dinmore reported that lawmakers demanded a bill aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government be increased to $50 million. This did not include the millions of dollars provided by the State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative. "We have turned opposition into a profession," commented Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "This money is going to go up."

Such "soft power" opposition activities are escalating. The May 29 New York Times quoted Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, as saying the Bush team was "taking a page from the playbook" of colored revolutions where US-funded pro-democracy NGOs helped nonviolently overthrow noncompliant governments.
In a later passage she pulled no punches:
America is pulling strings, with Israeli assistance. The former head of Mossad's foreign intelligence division, Uzi Arad, told Worldnetdaily.com: "Support of Iranian opposition by the international community could be an effective way to handle the current regime" and that "its stability can be greatly reduced by the people themselves." Pro-Israel lobbyist Michael Ledeen wrote for the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, "Mr Bush is correct that we should actively help the brave Iranians who are leading demonstrations against the regime ..."
I am hesitant to believe that the coordinated actions of the CIA-Israel tag team explains everything about the unfolding crisis in Iran. I am well aware, having visited family in the Kurdish provinces of Iran last summer, of the underlining discontent in the society and people's sheer contempt for the Islamic regime. We experienced rolling blackouts all summer, shopkeepers were pissed, and people were generally not at ease. My aunt informed me about the growing Basiji forces terrorizing the people into submission. I do not for one minute doubt this reality. But I also remember reading Stephen Kinzer's book, All the Shah's Men, when I was fifteen, and knew how much blood Amerika had on its hands. That haunting past is still with us. Amerikans can make excuses about the communist threat and the cloak of national security all they want, but if they had acted on their true principles, freedom and democracy, and allowed Mossadegh to stay in power then the recent history of the two countries wouldn't be so tragic. And more tragedy will be written; the blood is hardly off the emperor's hands, who until recently never acknowledged it's role in the bloody history of Amerikan-Iranian relations.

Moreover, we can not be totally moved by current events, however emotional they are, if we are too remain true journalists. Without keeping the past in mind we'll imprint our fate onto a hollow ground and we will forever relive tragedy. Oscar Wilde wrote that "for he to whom the present is the only thing that is present, knows nothing of the age in which he lives."

Why Theorizing Matters

I don't espouse conspiracy theories because I love to be in doubt. I've been cast into doubt, ever since I was born because that is what life entails, especially in our times but its true for all human beings in all of history. The reason why theorizing matters is because we live in an age of universal deceit, forewarned by Orwell, the most important prophet of our times. If we do not embrace doubt and philosophy then we will always be a culture led by childish thoughts. I never wholeheartedly believe any theory. It is just a way, and a vehicle to ask questions. There is no point in demanding answers, questioning is enough. "A theory is not something we believe or do not believe," Gasset said, "it is instead a question of whether or not certain ideas fit together, and whether they match the facts."

Tuning into the Western media coverage of the electoral havoc in Iran, one is left with a deep feeling of camaraderie with the Iranian people and a disdain for its careless government. But this is not objective reporting, it is a full frontal assault on the public mind; similar to the maneuvers of an impatient tiger with a kill finally in his sight.

We need to back-step and recollect our thoughts on a new terrain as the march of events continue in Iran, and follow Gasset's wisdom that "philosophy is always marching to the rear, always in retreat." Trusting the constructed opinions of the day, whether it originates in the media or in the public, is delusion. A false consensus has once again emerged, and for a day, I believed the big lie, so I am not immune to propaganda as much as I like to believe. For instance, I wasn't enlightened about the poll conducted prior to the election. Andrew Beatty writes:
Ken Ballen, president of the Washington-based Terror Free Future think tank, three weeks ago conducted a rare country-wide poll by phone of 1,001 people to gauge Iranians' voting intentions.

According to Mr. Ballen it is not obvious from that poll that the results of the election were rigged. "At that time Mr. Ahmadinejad was ahead by two to one. Is it plausible that he won the election? Yes."
However much I disdain the CIA and their Israeli counterparts, I know they are not all-powerful and that the forces they have set into motion are not entirely in their control. In my eyes there are so far three historical actors in this horrible first act; they are the Iranian regime, the Iranian people, and the foreign intruders. The Iranian regime is protecting its national interests but it is also very aggressive in its surrounding region. It recognizes the humanity of the Palestinian people but disregards its own people's desires. Whether their outreach in the Arab lands is political or a genuine attachment to Palestinian suffering is irrelevant to the American empire and Israel, and to a significant population of Iran. Unlike Iraq or Pakistan, Iran has formed its identity as the antithesis to America's thesis. According to the Mullahs, Babylon will fall again in the Persian sands, as it did over two millenniums ago. True or not, a cause against empire is more revolutionary and romantic than a cause against an unpopular government.

Henry Kissinger in a recent interview on BBC Newsnight, highlighted that the purpose of regime change is to transform Iran into a nation that only serves its interests and pays little attention to its anti-empire identity. Here is an extensive passage from that interview.
"I am sure that Americans would favour the emergence from the present situation of a truly popularly based government and it is very appropriate for the president to make clear that that is what he favours. Now if it turns out that it is not possible for a government to emerge in Iran that can deal with itself as a nation rather than as a cause then we have a different situation, then we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside but if I understand the president correctly he does not want to do this as a visible intervention in the current crisis."
Also, take heed of we must work for regime change in Iran form the outside, in other words, bombs over Tehran.

The second historical actor, the Iranian people, are deeply poetic and their persistent bravery in the face of indiscriminate brutality makes me proud. Many of the rebels who participated in the contests on the streets of Tehran in the past week have described it as kind of a dream. If it is a dream, a part of me wishes they never wake up so that they always feel the way they do now, but another part of me graciously ask that they snap out of it immediately. Regardless of today's events, their assertiveness in these past few days is a cause for celebration and their expression of joy in the face of the body-snatchers took on a religious dimension that trumps any Friday prayer. But to be in a perpetual state of cosmic significance is dangerous, we must remember to descend once again to the concrete level of living because that is where the facts reside, where realistic considerations of the path ahead can be made. The 'contests' later today may get bloody, and I call them contests because it has become a battlefield, not a mere protest. These are no longer little children kicking and screaming like Americans, they are facing down the authorities like men, and women.

I am not writing this post just to prophesize doom in my country of origin but to help raise consciousness and keep all dedicated fighters for freedom alert of the manipulative powers in their midst. I know the people mean well, and their inspiring acts are viewed in North America through what seems like a metaphysical scope. By resisting tyranny, regardless of the larger forces at work, they are living authentic lives. Some have called a million people puppets, but how do you explain their blood?

Ancient poetic melodies of the soul are alive within them, but I still must ask, whose chorus are their hearts singing? The country is pregnant with revolution but the conception was not natural, artificial methods were used. And the father will either ditch the day of birth or turn abusive when it rears its head. If I have one message to my compatriots it is this: don't allow your destiny to be written by foreign hands who have laid out their traps at every step on your trail of tears towards freedom. The dead poets are watching above you, and I will continue to watch from here. I will keep you in my hearts because you are going against a government that tramples on your every wish, a government that imprisoned my father and is keeping him from visiting his family. But I must be honest with you as well, and if I am not forever curious, and forever asking the uneasy questions then I am not doing my task.

Moreover, the third historical actor is the regime-change dynasty, and their attempts will prove futile in the end and not worth all they trouble they will cause. The ever vigilant Paul Craig Roberts asks:
What is the point of the destabilization of the Iranian government? After the stolen elections of the Karl Rove/Bush era, why does the US think it must overthrow the Iranian government because of allegations that Ahmadinejad stole an election?

If the answer is that these wars and interventions serve the interest of US hegemony, the obvious reply is that US hegemony is more likely to be lost from the massive red ink in the government’s budget that is likely to be monetized, thus destroying the dollar as reserve currency, the main source of US hegemony.
The danger Iran poses is bogus but only up to a point, after all, Iran has taken a strong line against America's desires for dominance in the Middle East. Obviously, the Kissingers of the world are not in a frenzy to squash Iran for no reason whatsoever. But they are overstretching themselves and acting way too arrogantly. Dark, menacing mullahs can be reasoned with, unlike stateless religious fanatics. The Amerikan regime must learn to use its powers more constructively or risk losing it forever. "Like clinical paranoia," William Blum says, "the threat from Iran is impervious to correction by rational argument."

Final Remarks

Ortega Y Gasset said that life "is essentially, magnificently, disquietude!" Reading him in these dark times helps greatly, it has kept me on the look out. I need to visit his grave sometime. I lack the intellectual clarity he has but I hope to make up for that in my honest rendering of the world as I live it. It is almost 4 am est time, high noon in Iran, and we're either on the verge of revolution, early shootings of an advancing civil war, or maybe even the shaky beginnings of world war three. Or I could just be crazy. Anyways, it is famously said that war is the parent of all things, to which I add, civil war is a single mother on life support and revolution her only child. And although I loathe religious governments that feed on the spirituality of their people and pounces on their sexuality like the Iranian regime has, I also realize the Iranian's state potential to stem the growing influence of the American empire in the Middle East.

The Persians have an opportunity to slice off the head of the Babylonian dragon and leave it forever bleeding in the sands. These demonstrations might serve at the very least a distraction to these efforts. I am not against the people marching in the streets, but it is still important to be mindful of the larger darker financial powers who seek to advance world politics in their own direction. Now, the one million dollar question is can overthrowing an unpopular government and an unpopular empire happen both at once, in one historical moment? Not unless the American people are inspired by the Iranian people's strength and join the fight against tyranny on their own streets. The American people are the fourth and most important historical actors in this grand tragedy. My message: Take the stage.


Chris Floyd, another writer exercising caution in this whole bloody affair, writes this:
As I noted the other day, no one knows how the current turmoil will turn out -- or how the various power-players, including the many elite factions inside Iran and the many vultures circling outside, will attempt to mold the chaotic reality to their own advantage. But it seems to me that the circumstances in Iran cannot be forced into any simplistic template. For while it is true that the American imperium does indeed seek to exert its influence everywhere and always, it does not and cannot engender and control every event on earth. We risk partaking of the courtiers' own hubris -- and their mythology of American exceptionalism -- if we make that automatic assumption.

June 16, 2009

Disquieting Doubts

The tweets are continuing to roll in about the recent Iranian election and its aftermath, and I'm not so sure anymore that the ongoing uprising is what it seems to be. Historical events of this magnitude are like webs, some strings are independent and they come into being sporadically and spontaneously. But at the center of the whole thing there are nefarious agents who have ulterior motives, and their involvement must never be overlooked. It is healthy that people are protesting in the streets of Tehran, but these actions come with a price that may be paid later, with the blood of patriots, tyrants, traitors and foreign soldiers.

I initially thought the explosive protests were a reflection of the people's grievances over the rigged election. I reacted emotionally, partly because I took pride in seeing my compatriots showing true courage, and partly because I am still skeptical about always trying to theorize. Maybe I should just stop thinking and always believe the official line. But that isn't me.

We need to take a step back for a minute, and see with new eyes. Similar type of events curiously occur in countries that are deemed as enemies to the United States. From the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, we saw the role the CIA played in fomenting anti-government protests, and creating political instability, leading almost to a new coup. In that operation, Chavez was the target. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the same type of thing maybe going on in Iran right now. It's been true in the past, if the CIA could pull a stunt like this off in 1953, what makes you think they're incapable to do the same in 2009?

It's all speculation, of course, only time will reveal such things. But time has reveal such things in the past. It's important to always remain doubtful of current and past historical events. Putting trust in American media's coverage of any historical event is never good, since as we all know the operation of the press has become an unruly oppression. There is no other way of putting it. Let's remember that the American media has continually lied about the Iranian's government purposes and desires for a nuclear program. The American CIA controlled media didn't report on IAEA findings that Iran's nuclear activities were of a peaceful nature. Also, the same media twisted Ahmadinejad's words when he criticized the Israeli state. They reported that Ahmadinejad said he wants to bomb Israel off the map, which was a mistranslation of language and metaphor. What Ahmadinejad meant is that he wanted to wipe off the Zionist regime in control of Israel off the map of history, and off the pages of time. He was not supporting or condoning genocide. Ahmadinejad is surely not an angel, and I'm willing to bet that in the heat of the moment he's the type of a man who would pull the trigger, press the button, and yes, even nuclear. So I am not in favor of him. He is head of a hypocritical and repressive government, just as Obama is. I would like to see both out of office, but I am troubled of who might take their places.

In America, the only opposition of Obama reported by the media is from the far right, who will probably install an even more hypocritical and repressive government if they ever get into office. And by the looks of things, those right wing fanatics, some of whom are propelled to prominence by the state agencies, are willing to use terrorist methods to scare the public and violently impress their ideology on people. The real patriots are lost in the brush fires. And the same is probably true in Iran. Who's to say who the real patriots are in times like these? Everybody has their own different world view and thus, take different sides. That's the bottom level, though. If we look at what's happening from a higher angle, and approach the situation with eagle eyes then we might have a better view of the truth.

As a student of history, I know revolutions and civil conflicts don't just appear out of nowhere. Although I am familiar with the concept of emergence, and bottom-up protests, it is still to early to tell if this is the case in Iran. Let's take a recent example, the tea party protests in America back in April. Those were backed by very powerful conservative interests who had different motives than the vast majority of the people who participated in the protests. Was some of it spontaneous and a reflection of the deep anger in the heartland? Absolutely. But those emotions can be riled up to achieve certain ends by very powerful interests. The history of the CIA and of the State in general in the last half century is very dubious. State agencies act very covertly and behind the scenes, and they are very successful at it. Since we know that Bush authorized the use of covert actions inside Iran to destabilize it's regime, can't we assume that the CIA has indeed taken the message? They've conducted the same shenanigans in Latin America and Eastern Europe for years, so why is it so prosperous to assume that they are doing the same thing in Iran?

In Latin American countries the CIA propped up rightist groups, funding their activities and covering up for them in propaganda pieces in the America media, and in Iran, it looks like they're helping leftist groups with the same tactics. It does not matter what your ideology is, left or right, because ideology does not grease the wheels of power. Money does. The CIA is not interested in supporting conservatives or liberals, capitalists or communists, pro-democracy groups or fascists but men who are pro-American empire, men who are not loyal to their country but to their wallets and egos. And the desired effect, which is to divide the country, is achieved no matter where in the world. Ultimately, the aim is to cause endless social unrest and political instability that could possibly lead to a coup and a new American stamped government.

But it is not just scumbags in the CIA who are rubbing their hands. Some of the bigger power players on the world war stage are also giddy behind the scenes. They are American military corporations like the RAND corporation, which has called for an expansion of war in the Middle East, beginning with an attack on Iran that could trigger WWIII. And of course, there is Israel's constant preoccupation with war in Iran. Israeli generals and state agencies act on their interests by any means necessary. Charting Stocks has speculated that some Israeli actors maybe behind some twitter postings, in the effort to destabilize the Iranian government. I can not verify if there is any truth to this, but if there is any country that is eying Iran like a hawk it is Israel. Why would these powerful, dark and very mysterious forces want to harbor political and civil instability inside Iran? Because, divide and conquer has always been the rule of the game. The current uprising in Iran could very well lead to a mini civil war, with different factions inside the government breaking off, thereby making the country more vulnerable to an American and Israeli attack. This is just speculation, of course, but it is always good to question the official version of events. The situation inside Iran is getting very murky. Are there any truths to my disquieting doubts? Only time will tell.


Paul Craig Roberts summed up the reasons to doubt a rigged election in Iran more coherently than I did. Here is a snippet:
There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower's ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government's inherent immorality.

Pakistan's former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. "The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election."

June 15, 2009

The fate of two nations

The tweets are in, and the Iranian people have spoken. The system is not broken, but their hearts are. The rigged election has fomented angry protests and is creating new conditions for a future, people-powered movement to arise, with or without Mousavi.

Symbolism speaks volumes. Heartfelt outrage has poured into the streets of the capital, with State police not far behind, showcasing to the whole world once again the actions any State is willing to go to in order maintain it's current facade in power. The leaders of Iran should remember, having once been revolutionaries, Jefferson's remark that "every generation needs a new revolution.” Thirty years ago, the fundamentalists had their revolution and now, thirty years later, a new generation is laying claim to its own revolution. Most of the country is young, born after 1979. If the leaders are smart, they would act leniently and introduce reform on their own terms, so that the original Islamic revolution will still be the bedrock of the country. But they've shown that they're not mature enough to make historical calculations and as a result I think they are putting the Islamic revolution in jeopardy. In the beginning the people only want reform and a few more freedoms than they currently have, but if you refuse them of these things, they will seek to get rid of the entire regime and start fresh.

It is heartening to see my compatriots diving into the streets, and into history. Some are diving into a heap of crowds, and some into a pool of blood. If they keep at it their lives will be better for it. And they are mostly young, so I assume they will. By their demonstrations, the students and the protesters are reviving the soul of the nation, which is sequestered by old and conservative revolutionaries, the worst kind of conservatives. Some of them will not remain resolute throughout this period in Iran's history, but there are a lot of men and women who are determined to see change. Will their eyes see more blood like earlier generations? If so, I think a few of them will be ready to spill their own. Sacrifice is honored in that society. They let their guts hang loose. Fuck the flag.

One of the interesting things about this entire episode is its stark contrast to Amerika after the 2000 election, when the Bush regime had their coup. In Iran, the people's reactions to the rigged election were vibrant, while in America there was hardly a murmur in the streets. Maybe its because Iran had a revolution only one generation ago, while in Amerika, rebellion hasn't been in the air since 1776. And also because Iran is a younger nation and the people are even more liberal, politically, than Amerika. The last comment is outrageous but let's remember one thing, America has the most extreme and conservative foreign policy in the world. It is conserving it's empire, so it has to be led by radical men who are aligned on the right. Obama is more to the right than any previous democratic president. I would say that he is even more conservative than Ahmadinejad in the realm of national security and foreign policy. Ahmadinejad is securing a revolution; Obama, an empire. So it is only natural for Obama to be more conservative.

Also, the military and financial elite of Amerika are hidden, unlike Iran's clerical elite who's presence is known, sometimes feared, but never questioned. When the Bush regime came into power illegally, Amerika's elite concurred and Gore didn't dare to raise any question. Maybe Gore knew better so he kept silent. History will judge him unfavorably, because in the hour of crisis he didn't choose to be a patriot but a coward. Maybe his global warming crusade is an effort to avenge himself, and end his life with a better act. He may prove to himself and to the rest of the world what kind of man he is in times of serenity, but when he was tested he showed what he was really made of. A coward is still a coward, no matter how many times he dies. But let's ask, for history's sake, what if Gore continued to request recount after recount and told his supporters to march to the capital, what would the conservative Ameirkan elite have done? The same thing that is being done in Iran right now. And Gore would have likely been assassinated by a 'lone' gunman.

Or maybe Gore didn't fight tooth and nail because he respected the tradition of the Amerikan government, a government in operation for more than 200 years. In Iran, Mousavi did what he did because the current government has only been in power for thirty years, it is still an infant and Mousavi can lay claim to the government just as Ahmadinejad can because they were both elemental to its early success. Political traditions are much more ingrained in America than in Iran, another reason why America is the more conservative country. Don't let the head scarves fool you, Iran is very liberal. There are more Jeffersonian democrats in Iran, and more religious fundamentalists in Amerika.

Another reason why the coup in Amerika wasn't contested is that the Amerikan people are hard pressed not to rebel. Their blood runs cold. But it's not their doing, Amerika's current political history inside its own borders is just stale. Nothing of major importance has happened since Reagan took office. There was no Obama revolution. Compare our times to the times immediately after 1776. After the original revolution there were a number of rebellions that continued into the early 19th century. One famous example is Shay's rebellion. Another is the political revolution of 1800 when Jefferson and the Republican branch of the original revolution were elected into power. In Iran the same type of antagonism is going on, different leaders recount their own version of events and their own reasons for the revolution. A few clerical titans in Iran are contesting the election, which would be an impossible thing in Amerika; members of the elite dissenting against the official line. Did Jimmy Carter call the Bush regime illegitimate? No. He criticized its foreign policy in the Middle East, which was very honorable, but to say the entire regime was illegitimate would be regarded as blasphemy by the Amerikan State, and even the Amerikan people.

I'm not trying to take a jab at the Amerikan people by saying their weak and a bunch of cowards compared to other people, okay...maybe I am. They have to redeem themselves through courageous, non-violent resistance. (But I jab the American people because I love them, they are destined for revolution). For good reasons, they see rebellion as going through the back alley. 100 years of State schools will do that to you. But it is their fate to revolt, or secede, or maybe both at once. Just as it is the Iranian people's fate to rebel and reclaim their natural freedoms. These next few years are going to be interesting times in both nations.

June 12, 2009

A few good words on Dr. Paul

Since it's unlikely that we'll have a meeting of the minds, I'll like to send out a kind greeting to Dr. Paul. The rapid success of his Audit the Fed bill reflects Dr. Paul's endless concerns for the health of the nation. If the bill passes untouched it will undoubtedly blow open the chained doors of the Federal Reserve buildings across the country, and establish Dr. Paul's legacy for future generations of legislators and politicians to admire and follow.

Dr. Paul has miraculously achieved this victory with the help of a few men, his staff, and some alternative media outlets. Given a daily show on a mainstream media channel, and he will civilize and cultivate the whole nation.

Ever since he ran for president in early 2007, Dr. Paul has been ringing the liberty bells, and finally a part of his work is near completion, however, it is a bit early to reflect on this splendid moment---let's not forget that the game is rigged. Still, we have in Dr. Paul a wise man whose character has inspired a revolution and a brand new intercourse of ideas on several matters of importance to the country. But beyond his personal attributes, he is also a formidable political opponent to the Establishment, and that is why he is feared by all statists.

Words are not nearly enough to express my gratitude for Dr. Paul's persistent courage and conscience in his long journey. He has led a remarkable and select life. As Emerson's child, he has protected the Republic's shrine; liberty. "Wild liberty develops iron conscience," Emerson evoked, whose wisdom has become tradition. And Dr. Paul, being the principal advocate of conscience in Congress, has carried on this uniquely American tradition.

In 1901, the young James Joyce wrote a letter to the playwright Ibsen, and his last few remarks in that letter are worthy to be repeated by me to Dr. Paul, who in addition to preserving the mantle of liberty, has gave birth to new life in American politics.

As one of the young generation for whom you have spoken I give you greeting--not humbly, because I am obscure and you in the glare, not sadly, because you are an old man and I am a young man, not presumptuously, nor sentimentally--but joyfully, with hope and with love, I give you greeting. - James Joyce

June 8, 2009

A declaration of war?

Barry Grey, over at Global Research, has reported on the Fed's intentions to cut entitlement programs and restore 'balance' to the economic system. Grey writes:
Testifying Wednesday before the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke demanded that Congress and the Obama administration map out a program of austerity measures to bring down record budget deficits. Bernanke made clear that the heart of this program should be sharp cuts in social spending, including basic entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets,” Bernanke said in prepared remarks to the committee, “requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance.”
We all knew this day would come, when America's ruling elite would finally decide to be up front with the American people and state clearly that it did not care about the American people. Through all the haze of economic calculations and rationalizations it's hard to pick out the real meaning of recent events, but with these latest developments, the picture is all too clear. Top US officials, inside the Fed and the White House, have decided to side with the Chinese government over the American people. And I don't blame the forces working inside the American government, they obviously realize the drastic consequences of challenging China, an embryonic empire.

And the American people have significant less firepower, but to take them out of the historical picture totally is a grave mistake. They are the only people with a large stockpile of weaponry capable to withstand the Empire's pressure, and more importantly, they know how to use them. The Pentagon probably understands this and realizes that the most important tenet of Obama's administration is his basic respect for the American people. He is seeking to fulfill his promises to create new jobs, and a more egalitarian health care system. Conditions will still be set by corporations, but there is some recognition on all sides that there needs to be some kind of reform. But I don't think Obama is aware of the larger historical processes at work. The stakes have changed. Offering jobs no longer cut it. Social band-aids, however honorably conceived, may quell dissent but in the long run they are not enough to cover up the larger flesh wounds. Sooner or later, as hostilities between the people and Wall Street increases, he will have to make his legacy. Will his character or his words decide his fate?

Moreover, while it is true that the America's ruling elite has carried out covert operations against its own people for generations, this is the first time they have articulated their plans in public. For a long time, cutting pensions and entitlement programs have been on the agenda in Washington, but it was never politically feasible. With the greatest economic crisis ever in progress, however, that is no longer the case. A whole new ball game is under away. A new phase in history is opening, and Bernanke's recent pronouncements, which amount to a declaration of war on the American people, are the beginning credits. I'm not one to practice measured restraint, not in the face of such a blatant disregard for the American people.

If this was any other country I could understand the government's actions. Cutting pensions and slashing welfare is minuscule compared to stripping away the basic resources of life, which has been the daily reality in the third world. The bottom billion have long been marginalized by their own governments and the larger forces operating in world politics. Their lifestyles are discarded, and their hopes are not even considered. And the sad reality is that they have to take it because they don't have the power to defend themselves. But the American people? A completely different story. They may seem indifferent and apathetic but that's because nothing of value has been taken from them. Take away human life overseas? Who cares--they don't even bat an eye. But take their lifestyle privileges from them and they'll turn into bizarrely different creatures. They have had a taste of middle class existence and to pry it away from them is the stupidest thing the current American government will ever do. It will lead to their inevitable demise.

Here is another passage from Grey's article:

Warning that a continuation of such levels of debt could drive up the cost of government borrowing—a disastrous prospect for an economy dependent on a continuous stream of loans from China, Japan and other countries—Bernanke said that the deficits would have to be reduced substantially either through tax increases or budget cuts. “The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt,” he declared.

He made clear that his prescription for “fiscal balance” was dramatic cuts in what remains of social programs, rather than tax increases. He zeroed in on the basic programs upon which tens of millions of Americans depend—Social Security and Medicare.

Many fiscal conservatives and libertarians admit that the economic medicine has to be taken, that the American people have to tighten up for living extravagantly, and that this is the only option. In short, they believe that the American people can no longer hide from fate. But a question we need to ask is who has lived the most extravagantly over these years? The American people, a sixth of whom don't have health care, or the American government and it's beneficiaries? Certainly, it's the later.

It is true that tough times call for tough measures, but who is prescribing the medicine? Is it the more trusted doctor, Ron Paul? Or a seriously deranged and power hungry doctor, Kaiser Bernanke?

I do think that America's social programs are unsustainable but so is its military budget and foreign policy. Deciding between cutting taxes or social programs is a false choice anyway. It's like a doctor telling us to take his insured medicine or die. Instead, we should notify him that we have information of alternative medicine and can live a long, prosperous life without his involvement. And the doctor, who will get a kickback if he pushes a certain type of medicine, knows this but he still persists. So it finally comes down to a question of power and will.

June 5, 2009

False, False, False

If I had to grade the current American president I would give him an 'F', a higher mark than the two-time president, Dubya, who's attendance was too poor to even deserve a grade. And it is not an 'F' for Fascist, or for Failure, but for False. His administration was the harbinger of false hopes, just as the previous administration was the harbinger of false fears, which "are both equally to be avoided," as Samuel Johnson said. What's worse than impregnating false emotions are spawning false wars which is done by the corrupt usage of language, and both presidents are guilty of this. All the leaders of the 20th century, save few, have been guilty of betraying the ancient and fundamental laws of rhetoric. Richard Weaver, the 20th's century most original thinker on the artful and ethical use of rhetoric, said that "when the ultimate terms (freedom, progress, democracy) become a series of bare abstractions, the understanding of power is supplanted by a worship of power, and in our condition this can mean only state worship."

Some people cannot understand the wealth of devotion Obama has received worldwide, and I see their point entirely but they're missing two crucial things. In the face of history's greatest crises, some real and some made up, but all coming one after another, and with a clown in the backdrop, how can Obama not appear as a God to some people? It is a mix between celebrity and hero worship, and it is not unique to this generation of Americans or to this man, Obama. "The chief national heroes," said H.L Mencken of America, "cannot remain mere men. The mysticism of the medieval peasantry gets into the communal view of them and they begin to sprout haloes and wings." Still, I understand the admiration people have for Obama, I just think it's misplaced. Humanity has always had a dire need to worship heroes, our age is no different, and the state's grasp of this fact strengthens its powers and undermines ours. But let's get back to Bush and Obama, aside from their attitudinal and generational differences, the two men share one thing in common: being president of the Amerikan empire during its highest reaches of power and its lowest moral position in the world. True, American's missions abroad have never been moral, but at least in WWII there was a bigger and meaner bully around, making the American state better able to justify its atrocities. Bush and Obama are not irregular presidents, all American presidents are war-time presidents. It goes with the territory. But they're arrival on the historical scene at the same time is uncommon: a white screwball, coming from a rich and well-known family, followed by a half-black young intellectual with an extraordinary upbringing for the times in which he was born.

Another thing they share with one another is a painful fear of chaos. I could be wrong. I believe both have tried to lead in darkness; they "seek by terror and force to hold back the tide," as Izzy said, and this is true of all "blind and backward rulers." Terrorism, the watchword that opened this so far apocalyptic century, is a bit like the communist menace of our day, only it's not a ruthless conspiracy and there is no state that actively promotes terrorism as its philosophy--which, admitted or not, is the bedrock of all states. Because terrorism is an emotion and not an idea does not mean that the modern world isn't ruled by an idea, or a grand philosophy. Terrorism is the oil that allows states to grow without any friction rising up from the public, but what I care about is the engine.

Some claim, with good evidence, that the grand and all-encompassing idea that is driving world politics in our age is the New World Order. It is said that this monstrous conspiracy has infiltrated the centers of power, and it has been possible without any notice because the biggest power of our day, the Press, has long been taken in by this idea. But to utter a word about the desires of some men for a new world order would make you less than a heretic. When expressing any such sentiment you are instantly labeled bat-shit crazy, and if you do it with passion, dead minds will get the impression that your whole being is not of this world. No one pays you any thought, and it feels like your whole existence; your will, your values, and your history, is meaningless. According to the state and it's ruling class, you are to eat, marry, and die. And if you're lucky you'll live a life with some measure of happiness. But answering the larger questions in society and living out your own philosophy? You will do no such thing.

Amassing and applying social power without the State in mind is frowned upon. The state is responsible for modern man's achievements, so runs the present state of mind. "The State," declared Albert Jay Nock, "always instinctively 'turning every contingency into a resource' for accelerating the conversion of social power into State power, was quick to take advantage of this state of mind." Nock's thoughts on the state are more relevant today then in his own time. In the last great depression he remarked that our "nominally republican system is actually built on an imperial model, with our professional politicians standing in the place of the praetorian guards." He also highlighted the similarities between our current primal institution, the state, and the past primal institution, the church. Medieval men inherited the church, clergy and its educational camps, while we have inherited the state, career politicians, and our very own educational camps. Society has changed, new freedoms cherished, and new social ideals followed, but all this has happened in antithesis to the state's goals and interests.

I always felt bad that men in past ages had it so much worse than us. Just look at our modern conveniences and see how spoiled we are. But all is not rosy, we are starting to experience hardships collectively, and maybe this shared experience will inspire real leaders. It's already beginning to take place with the political manoeuvrings of men like Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, RJ Harris, Adam Kokesh, and Ron Paul who deserves the biggest credit for relaunching the original revolution. And that is why the success of Dr. Paul, Alex Jones and the larger freedom movement, which is a revolt against the false left/right paradigm, is so remarkable. Old politics is shattering, it is state vs. social power now. The people vs the banks. The battle for the ages, and of the ages, is upon us. Take that extra sip of caffeine because the battle is beginning tonight, and it will be a long night. Someone should revive HST from the grave, or is it the air? It's too bad he's missing this ride, no, actually. . . he was on it before everybody else was. He took the ride to the top, bruised a few Nazi egos on the way, and all without a seat belt.

Furthermore, without the dissemination of information through the internet our chances of reclaiming liberty would be zero. I am dead certain of that. But the internet is obviously not enough. How do we break through the dissemblance of President Obama and break free from such a toxic intellectual culture? The remedy is simple. All good things are simple. "There must be renewed recognition," Izzy wrote, "that societies are kept stable and healthy by reform, not by thought police." Izzy dismissed the government's fear tactics of his day and said that to suppress unembedded ideas from public life is to "shut off peaceful progress and to invite revolution and war." And that is exactly what the current leadership of the United States is harboring: revolution and war. And they are planning for it by militarizing the local police forces, turning the country into a war zone.

But history catches up in the end, and nobody gets away. To run in terror from chaos while posing as a Texan macho man was Bush's stunt and he failed, miserably, and I'm sure years from now we can all laugh a little bit easier. The best jokes about Bush have yet to be written. But Obama is choosing to run in terror while posing as the levelheaded rational man, in a state of grace, and that representation of himself is the ultimate paradox of our age, because if he had publicly touted the real dangers confronting us he would have been lambasted as a lunatic and would never have graced the cover of Time magazine. The world is a scary place, and Bush's temperament, similar in some ways to Obama's, is not an exact representation of our times. The real man who personifies our frightful and nervous age is Cheney. But I don't like thinking about him, much less writing about him because I am not yet ready to go to the dark side. However much I hate him, I still admire Cheney, and think his contrast to Dr. Paul is important. The world needs contrast, that's how the young learn. Dr. Paul's conception of history is based on a battle of ideas and so he has remained a principle advocate of small government, individual freedom, free markets, and no wars, whereas Cheney is moved by a mysterious bogeyman, a threat that justifies the abandonment of law and the suppression of information. Cheney is absolutely hopeless and his hunches about WMDs and other threats to the American people have been proven false. Izzy in 1954, at the start of the Army-McCarthy hearings, rebuked this version of history:
Had we operated on the bogeyman theory of history, America would have destroyed itself long ago. It will destroy itself now unless and until a few men of stature have the nerve to speak again the traditional language of free society.
If he was alive today he would see that Amerika is well on its way to destroying itself. No man of a high level of stature, except for Dr.Paul, has spoken in the tradition that Izzy mentioned. Obama, being a lawyer, has twisted language with his twisted tongue. But I am kind and I will reserve my complete judgment on the man until further notice. An unexpected march of events, fueled by popular outrage, may lead to a day of glory for him because he is truly a man without a heir or a predecessor, and he's possessed with a certain kind of genius that is undeniable. Wherever he goes he seems to embody Eliot's 'the still point of the turning world' and if something ever happens to him, I'm sure surging chaos will undoubtedly ensue in some corners of Amerika and a general sense of helplessness will be blanketed across the nation. To a lesser extent, the world will also feel the pain because they will then be even more afraid of Amerika and might abandon it to its own resources. It's sad that a man of any caliber can be able to attain such a crude apex, but unfortunately, both for Mr. Obama and the country, that is where we are.

The sacred leadership Obama has come to be identified with, for good or ill, has nothing to do with his personality. He is the window pane of our times, and I cannot be mad at him for that since it was not totally his doing. He was elevated by a rude press, an all too impressionable public and ushered into office by greedy bagmen. But he has played some part in his rise to a height of unbearable transcendence, a place marked off for heroes and visionaries, not measly politicians with a talent for oratory. Despite his adoring fans, he has a false, or what Weaver would call an "engineered" charisma. That charisma has been used for the profit of the few. Obama's response to the recession is failing, as Lew Rockwell has pointed out. And his recent speech in the Islamic world, despite being the most awesome, god-damn speech in the history of the world, is completely irrelevant because he does not follow up in policy what he says in public.

If we judge a man by his words, then Obama is a great man. That he is not an independent leader and more aware of the magnitude of these times is probably the tragedy of the United States. Some label him an emperor, to which I say: emperors are assassinated, not adored by powerful interests. A tiger without teeth is an utterly depressing sight, and that's what it was like watching Obama's speech in Cairo. I think Obama desires to be above the times, but lacking in spontaneity and sincerity, his composed articulations comes off as too premeditated to be taken seriously. His calm demeanor is not in the tradition of Wordsworth's "wise passiveness" and besides, Amerika already has an elder, wiser and more serene man in Ron Paul. Obama, who like Paul, is a leo, needs to get more angry and confrontational to the powers blocking reform. And this depends on where his heart is at, and what he really believes in behind all the polish. Maybe he is a lying sociopath, you can never rule that out. In fact, that is high on the list. But from time to time Obama does shine as he is meant to. And one of those moments was in the address he gave in Cairo. Justin Raimondo, who's recent article is subtitled "Words. Words. Words" said:
I have to say, however, that as much as I regard Obama as the smiling face of US imperialism, whose goal it is to prettify the ugly and justify the unjustifiable, his pronouncements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are refreshing, albeit disturbing in a different way.
If you see a pattern in the title of Rockwell's, Raimondo's, and my article, it was entirely intentional, at least, on my part. Moreover, the point that is repeatedly made is how disappointing the 2008 election was. It was not a season of renewal but another act in a tragedy still unfolding before our weary eyes. I'm not as gloomy as I used to be, I think 2008 gave us a glimpse of Amerika's future. People were generally excited about politics and a general civic sense was hatched in that election. The brightest episode, which has not ended and will never end, was Dr. Paul's campaign. Anyway, 2012 looks like the year for radical politics in Amerika. All it takes is one juicy scandal for the Democrats to lose their footings, and the Republican party is already immaterial to Amerika's future growth.

But the point still remains, there has been no change since the Bush years, actually that is not true, there has been a change for the worse. When Bush came into office the towers fell, and when Obama came into office the country fell. And it is not entirely Obama's fault, but by not attending to change he is suppressing everything that is good in Amerika. He is too preoccupied with keeping his hand over the demon's mouth, a phrase D.H Lawrence used to refer to the early beginnings of a poet. Obama has chosen not to clear house despite having the best hand of any recent president upon walking into the Black House. But, to be perfectly honest, I cannot blame him for rewarding the powers that put him into office and filling his cabinet with second rate thinkers from the lousiest street in Amerika. It shows that he is conscious and loyal, two very admirable traits. Or, it could also mean he's the vilest kind of a politician there is.

The most disappointing thing about Obama is his lack of consciousness when it comes to Amerika's financial history. He has never written a treatise on banks, the power of money or any other philosophical-social subject that have credence at any time, but especially in our own. He has written about his personal journey but I am less interested in that, however remarkable it may be. I care about his thoughts on the battle between the banks and the government, which dates back to America's founding. If only he was a bit more of an intellectual and less of a politician. New economic advisers would surely help because he comes across as a man who listens.


If the 20th century taught us anything, it's that language is the most powerful tool on the government's war rack. The language employed on the public by politicians are always flattering and that is why its dangers are easily missed. Teaching the art of rhetoric in public schools would have put people in a better position to judge their leaders. Weaver sounded the alarm on the dangers of modern rhetoric in the mid-century, foreshadowing the politics of Blair and Obama:
They often sound like the very gospel of one's society, but in fact they betray us; they get us to do what the adversary of the human being wants us to do. It is worth considering whether the real civil disobedience must not begin with our language.
Mathematician and biologist Jacob Bronowski, also creator of the acclaimed BBC documentary "The Ascent of Man" said that science has succeeded where magic has failed because "it has looked for no spell to cast over nature." And that is what governments, and its die-hard attendants, do when they use words to mesmerize instead to make clear. They cast spells on the public mind, and to rebel against spells has always been the duty of poets and artists.

Thankfully, in our world, the spell is beginning to wear off, at least in intelligent circles. The reason why state worship is at its highest pitch right now is because these years are the state's last gasp. What's coming next, at least in Amerika, is not a depression that can be put into a historical reality, but a cataclysm that will be remembered generations from now as the final blow to the Amerikan government. There will be a brief time frame, in which, the state will be exposed naked and people will start spontaneously helping one another without orders, as it always been the case. Orders are given to kill, they don't have to be given to help. People will direct their actions according to social signals in society. Since we are social animals and we serve ourselves and our genes best when we act socially, I think the level of crime in society will dramatically reduce.

This is not a Utopian dream. I am not a reformer, or a revolutionary. A totally new understanding of social networks and social systems has emerged in the last six decades. Knowledge of self-organizing and self-regulating systems is increasing in various fields, from computer engineering to urban studies, and the history of this increasing knowledge is written very clearly by writer Steven Johnson in his book "Emergence." All the historical facts are pointing to an expected, but still unimaginable, turning point in the history of civilization. It is a history filled with Man trying to implement his extractive systems on nature, and Man's nature which has proven counter-productive, to put it mildly. In the end, as we are all now witnesses, these state-imposed systems overwhelmingly serve destruction more than creation, death more than life, and lies more than truths.

That is not to say that the past is littered with bad ideas that disables society to create and evolve on its own . A few good men have lent their genius to social reform and have developed ideas about the economy akin to the workings of nature. Underneath all the successful ideas one basic rule has continually supplanted itself: leave creation alone, and it will grow according to its own natural laws. The state has been a thorn in Man's side, an itch always waiting to be scratched, and once scratched it grows bigger and redder until finally it is popped. All of Man's successes have come by surprise to the state, an engine engineered thousands of years ago and fine tuned in the past two centuries, that drives human beings to slavery, and in the end, as we see in Iraq, to death.

By understanding the state's inherent flaws we will discover the true path towards a more livelier, peaceful and intelligent society. It certainly hasn't stop human ingenuity in the past, so why are we afraid that plans for a new world order will succeed in our own time? "Man, "Bronowski said, "masters nature not by force but by understanding." And the Amerikan government will be forced to understand the nature of the world, and of its place in it. Islam, too will have to be led by peaceful men with both heart and mind intelligence, and as a religion and a civilization come to understand and appreciate Western civilization's gifts to the world which are the ideas of individual liberty and self-development.

Being born in 1989, the year that saw the end of many corrupt and totalitarian governments and the first cracklings of an uprising in China, is very exciting, I have to admit, because I was born as many governments died, a sign, I hope, of things to come. Many thinkers will read that statement and brush me off as a young man going through his idealist phase, then point to examples like Waco, 9/11, Iraq and shout "You fool! 1989 wasn't the end of a grand idea in history but mere rearrangements in the construction of power in the world." But I won't concede my personal manifesto that 1989 is the year that sounded the bells of freedom, at least for modern times,1776 seems eternities away. Instead, I will respond by quoting from Faulkner's Nobel speech: "I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance."

June 1, 2009

The Revolution Continues. . .

Video made by Claytrainor for Adam Kokesh money bomb on July 4th.