The Crack Between the Worlds: Judge Pauley vs. Judge Leon

The 9 11 attacks on the USA have exposed a previously hidden but dangerous crack running through the current nominal free world. On one side is freedom; the other, security.

On December 27 Judge Pauley (ACLU vs. Clapper) ruled in favour of the NSA security apparatus spying activities against the citizens of the United States. In his decision, he made the claim that the choice between liberty and security is a false dichotomy. Pauley makes this statement after his nation has fought wars for freedom, ostensibly, and against nations and notions of buttoned down security. Wars have been fought to defend the USA against ideologies that may compromise the free individual. It is certainly not a false dichotomy. While this question will always be on a spectrum, there is a clear divide between secure societies (especially where everybody is monitored) and a free society.

Earlier this month, Judge Richard Leon ruled in favour of freedom. And there it is; the crack that separates federal judges. It also shows up in broad ideological terms. It separates conservatives from libertarians, liberals from liberals, and socialists and anarchists from so called communists. It is a crack that runs through philosophy, religion, and history. It probably runs through most individuals.

Pauley argues that “National security investigations are fundamentally different from criminal investigations. They are prospective – focused on preventing attacks – as opposed to the retrospective investigation of crimes.” Pauley aims to take due process into a nebulous realm where slippery pro fascist arguments may hold sway with fascistic minded individuals. He moves the locus of interest offshore to foreigners that are not protected under the Constitution. Then he uses that to justify pre-emptive strategies to stop the crime before it happens. Not only is Judge Pauley being disingenuous with the law pertaining to the fourth amendment, he is also on the wrong side of the Magna Charta and the basic legal principles that have been underlying planks to freedom for centuries. Preventing crime before the crime happens sounds good, we can then lock up anybody that will probably commit a crime before he commits the crime. Unfortunately, there is no way to live in a free society with this kind of security. To live in a free society, we need to tolerate the pedophile down the street and, we need to live with the possibility of being killed by violent people whether they are deemed (however arbitrarily) by the state ‘terrorist’ or not.

This is not about terrorism. It is about you. The state is not spending the time and money on the security state as it is in order to keep Al Qaeda from killing citizens. If fear, death, or any other types of citizens suffering were important to policymakers, they would address the fear, death, and suffering they directly cause in decisions where big money win out over human health and well-being. It isn’t terrorism they are afraid of. They are afraid of you.

A society where the state places the individual in a high tech goldfish bowl is a society where the state lords itself over, above, and against the population. It is a state aiming for total knowledge and control over the individual. While NSA activities may not result in jackbooted fascists storming through your door in the middle of the night, the differences are really cosmetic. We are moving to a paradigm you may remain marginally free compared to Germans under Hitler, Russians under Stalin, or Saudis under their current monarchs but, it is important to recognize that American society has crossed the aforementioned crack. Once that line is crossed, it is much easier for future explicit fascists and tyrants to rule with arbitrary power.

Judge Pauley makes much of the possibility that another terrorist attack may occur against the USA. What is much more devastating to the USA and indirectly to many other nations is the sustained decade old attack on individual freedom, an attack where Pauley himself is a guilty party. Individual physical attacks are one thing, attacking the fundamental legal and political basis of the nation is far more serious.

We can easily imagine the divide where on one side stand Madison and the American revolutionaries that brought the USA and the free world to modernity. Behind them stand millions of dead soldiers and citizens that have died for freedom. With them are countless intellectuals, philosophers, and revolutionaries the world over and throughout history; on the other side – a totalitarian nightmare.

Historically, the political left and right have been comfortably at each other’s throats – and we like it that way. On this occasion however, the left may find allies on the libertarian right and vice versa. No matter what we think and believe on other issues, the issue of freedom is the battle du jour and we need to win it. Together we may rise up against the cowards on both our sides of this existential crack in time.

The War on Children

The impact of Western military attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya have been catastrophic. Aside from people directly killed in the attacks, the physical, economic and social infrastructure of these nations has been ruined. Aside from Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, Western meddling has killed, displaced, and ruined the lives of countless others in Syria and many other nations in the Middle East and Africa. Aside from the reprieve granted by Putin's intervention in Syria, there is nothing to suggest the Western war machine is anywhere close to slowing down.

This is a very serious situation and it is time that we, the supposed employers of Western politicians, do something about it.

The Impact of War on Children

Much has been said to address post trauma stress suffered by veterans of those wars. While that is a festering wound on its own, we will consider what it is like for the individuals that happen to live in a war zone. For them, the war only ends when the war ends and even then, it doesn't end. War karma will drag on and on well into the future. The society must live with the consequences that war has for young people that are in the midst of their mental and emotional development. The consequences have ramifications not only for the affected individual but for their society as a whole. For the domestic population, there is no going home from the war. When war ends, it really doesn't.

Western nations have child protection services to intervene where children are at risk of being harmed by caregivers. Agencies tend to address problems by providing services to a family where children are at risk of harm. Should those responsible for the children present significant harm to the children and they cannot or will not reduce the risk, parents are stripped of their default authority over the children and children may be removed from the home. Citizens generally become quite disturbed when a local child is being harmed. Yet, brown skinned children in foreign lands may suffer as a direct result of their elected leaders decisions but citizens tend to ignore that suffering. On the other hand, we are rarely exposed to information about this brutal reality.

It is imperative that we develop a means to strip authority away from politicians that kill and injure children.

Brain development process are sequential and build on previous development. A secure and predictable environment is crucial to healthy development. On the other hand, an environment where children are 'incubated in terror' will lead to a myriad of developmental problems that will require even more security, stability, and child skilled parents than can be provided in typical homes in a secure environment. Add in the conditions that war brings both in its duration and afterward, and the prognosis is poor. Children affected this way will be prone to suffer from PTSD, attachment disorders, and a wide range of neurotic disorders.

Some stages of development of the growing brain are more critical than others. Children are vulnerable and some stages of development are more crucial than others. Generally speaking, the younger the child the more vulnerable he or she is. "Disruptions of experience dependent neurochemical signals during these periods may lead to major abnormalities or deficits in neurodevelopment, some of which may not be reversible. "Disruptions of critical cues may result from "extremes of experience". Experiences that affect the development of the lower areas (brainstem and mid-brain) "...necessarily alter the development of limbic and cortical areas because critical signals these areas depend on for normal organization originate in these lower brain areas." - See more at: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/5335-the-children-of-iraq.html#sthash.Rd8O0qgn.dpuf

Chances for these children, where their nation has been devastated, are slim. Not only are their own parents impoverished, affected by PTSD, and coping with problems safe citizens can't imagine, the whole neighbourhood has been and remain in crisis due to the exponential nature of problems created by problems that have been created by the terror of war.

Recent studies on the effects of the environment on brain development indicate that environmental influences can “determine how genes are turned on and off and even whether some are expressed at all.” While children inherit both the brain's hard wiring as well as the genetic software that goes with it, it is the epigenome (operating system/software) that determines “which functions the genetic “hardware” does and does not perform.”
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp10/

“Because early experiences can alter the
epigenome and influence developing brain architecture, policies affecting the life circumstances of pregnant women and young children
can have enormous implications for all of society. The varied effects of environments on the
epigenome are evident from the time of early
embryonic development and extend into the
early childhood years. Science tells us that children can be helped to reach their full potential
through both appropriate experiences in the
earliest years and the reduction of sources of
toxic stress that can alter the epigenome and increase the risk of long-term problems in physical and mental health. Thus, public policies that
harness the basic principles of neuroscience
and epigenetics to address the needs of young
children are likely to also generate long-term
benefits, such as healthier communities and a
more prosperous society.
” (Ibid)

The Damage Done

The damage that has occurred and continues to occur in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and all societies victimized by war may be difficult to assess considering this type of 'collateral damage' and its ripple effects that go on into the future. However, it is a task that must be carried out. It is information that is important for those affected but it is also crucial that an informed citizenry demand an end to the ongoing wars.

Recently, the American war machine was primed to enter Syria. Thankfully, that stage of 'Western intervention' has been averted. What we are left with however are policymakers silently breathing a sigh of relief having discovered Al Qaeda waging war against it's proposed proxies. The apparent whimsical and caprice nature of making decsions about going to war is disturbing on many levels, not least of which is the callous disregard for the impact that war has on those affected. Even short of an invasion in Syria, Western meddling has prolonged and bloodied a civil war that probably has reduced living conditions to that of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. Currently, 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, two million have fled the country and another four million are displaced inside Syria. The real suffering that these numbers reflect is inconceivable.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/syria-dashboard/

Although you wouldn't know it from Western media reports, or lack thereof, Iraq has been suffering through war since the Americans left. In their wake, the USA has left behind a civil war that rages on. In 2013, 8,000 to 9,000 people have been killed in the ongoing civil war.
http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/a-wave-of-violence-sweeps-iraq


Western intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya has been catastrophic for these nations. The consequences will live on for decades and perhaps even longer. These massive crimes against humanity have occurred, are occurring, and will continue. This is an outrageous situation and what makes it much worse is that so called 'Western intervention' continues and will continue and will likely spread through Africa and possibly even Asia.

And we, the people, are apparently powerless to do anything about it.
That is what the war party wants you to believe.

Russell Brand: To the Barricades

Russell Brand's recent BBC interview with Jeremy Paxman has gone viral. He said what many are thinking but dare not utter. His obvious lack of preparation, his spontaneous honesty and irreverence apparently caught the BBC's Jeremy Paxman off guard.

Brand's call for revolution seemed less offensive to Paxman and all professional sycophants than his admission that he had never voted. He then went on to point out that elections are part of a process that entrenches power and control for corporate and political elites.

Democracy and Elections

He certainly hit a nerve. His bold statements resonate with the classes that suffer under the weight of austerity and what appears to be a terminally ill system that, as he points out, isn't working. They have also rattled financial parasites and their acolytes around the globe. With good reason. The conditions for revolution are actually ripening.

What has touched a particularly sensitive nerve was calling into question the supremacy and sanctity of parliamentary democracy. The smug unidimensional argument over the years has been, 'if you/me don't like the way the nation is run, vote for somebody else or, we are free to start our own political party'. This view, in its cartoonish simplicity, will not open backroom doors or examine power structures or relationships between wealth and political power. It is tantamount to telling Edward Snowdon to use the proper channels to complain about the NSA's nefarious activity (an outrageous affront to democracy).

Apologists for the NSA are exactly the same people that are rattled by Brand's bold statements. Their's is a view that suggests safety and security rests with the status quo. According to the current official narrative, security is the paramount concern. Its opposing existential condition (freedom) is diminishing as the defining characteristic of Western ideology.

The real question is whether elections, the act of voting itself, is sufficient criteria to constitute democracy. If we look at the way government policies are formulated and carried out, we can only conclude that Mr. Brand is correct. That is, the traditional notion of democracy has been perverted by big money, it is a sham.

We have witnessed conservative, liberal, and social democratic governments elected and, once elected, carry on where previous governors left off. No substantial independent political initiatives occur. That is, the people have been stripped of any meaningful political power. Political independence in Western nations is approaching that of the old Soviet Bloc. While NATO (the Pentagon) pressures governments to march to Washington's tune, displays of independent defiance are increasingly rare. They occur however. Not all Western governments are willing to wage war whenever Washington demands it. They do, in unison, mimic support for whatever madness intends to unleash at victim populations. The most recent embarrassing spectacle being their uniform bloodlust toward the Syrian people.

A decade ago, while Labour in the UK banged the war drum in concert with Washington, in a bold act of defiance Canadian Liberals resisted. Today however, foreign policy dissent is more strained and less tolerated.

While there is uniformity, more or less on the foreign policy front among Western nations, it is lock solid on questions of economics and financial policy. Central banks, the IMF and the US Treasury will not tolerate dissent. While the notion of real democracy is on thin ice now, in times of crisis, there is no pretense. For instance, the crisis in Greece exposed the latent dictatorial power of the European Union, the IMF, and the European Central Bank. As other nations get to the brink (Italy, Spain, Portugal), those that work for the financial bodies responsible for the crisis take explicit control nations. Ongoing financial crisis not only provides a pretext for financiers taking increased control of governments, it also serves to increase exploitation of workers, cut social spending and wages.

The upshot is, elections do not affect the way policies are formulated or the way economic decisions are made. On the important questions, financial power is real power.

Real Politik Power

The question is: Who is really in control? And more to the point, who/what is in control of the state that controls acolyte states. In other words, who or what actually controls the American state? Who is behind closed doors when the really big decisions are made? Who is it that tells Obama what to do?

Another interesting question is why this question is apparently completely off the radar as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Why did Russell brand's statements about what is obvious go viral?

It is worthy considering the possibility that a union between the American state (and client states) and the private/corporate sector is real. That 'possibility' not only explains why trillions of dollars has been either directed to private wealth (notwithstanding the technical public status of corporations) or, created out of thin air (quantitative easing) but, why individuals and organizations with no threat of terrorism are under the scrutiny of the NSA.

The Western world is not only facing increasing austerity and inequality and a state apparatus that is constantly watching us, it is also in a hair trigger posture for war. Again, we look to the same nefarious powers. We may turn our attention to the question of who profits directly from the insanity and lack of logic connected to ongoing endless war. Consider the outcomes. Who stands to profit from unleashing unholy hell toward Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc. Consider the relationships between the state and Boeing, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, and so on and we begin to see a picture that renders partisan politics quaint. Its participants, naive.

John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out over a decade ago that “In 2003, close to half the total US government discretionary expenditure was used for military purposes. A large part was for weapons procurement or development. Nuclear-powered submarines run to billions of dollars, individual planes to tens of millions each.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-06.htm

Galbraith explains further that weapons profiteers provide politicians with plans and designs for new weaponry that will provide jobs and salaries for politicians constituencies. What Galbraith does not explain (in this particular article) is that this type of spending is immensely wasteful. It is just one more example of corporate welfare.

Curiously, while the so called 'trickle down' myth has been utterly discredited as well as the broader neo liberalist ideology due to the colossal failures and financial catastrophes they have caused, it is still the basis of financial polices maintained by politicians - conservative, liberal, and social democrat alike.

Is it any wonder cynicism and suspicion have replaced naivety and political innocence?

Western foreign policy is shaped and dictated by the corporations that run the American state and so is a good deal of domestic policy. So called free trade agreements also give these very same corporate managers a handle and a great deal of leverage on domestic policies in all affected nations. Corporate managers or their representatives (behind those closed doors) pull Obama's strings. He and elected representatives in Western nations are a facade of power, a facade of democracy. Real power resides not with those elected but elsewhere.

In the last decade, we have been increasingly acclimatized to gulags, torture, pre-emptive and irrational, inexplicable war, contempt for Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution and economic catastrophe. We have reached a point where Russia, Asian leaders, and Latin Americans are showing the West how diplomacy works and how rationality and rule of law trump arbitrary tyranny.

Russell brand is correct. It is time to stand up to rule of the bourgeoisie and the privatization of all that is public, to unfettered corporate control of domestic policy not only in the USA, but everywhere. Because if we look into the nature of capitalism, it grows in one direction.

A Very Strange Reality

CNN runs this story. We read this loud and sensational story of a man that murders without a conscience. Hard for most of us to fathom. CNN brings a few sensational aspects of the story such as “killing doesn’t seem to affect him” and the fact that he admitted to killing “more than” 30 men as an enforcer for Mexican drug gangs.

CNN and we, the reader, take a certain smug comfort in our distance from that kind of brutal reality.

Besides this particular story, media often sensationalize serial murderers or murders that happen to have an element of shocking brutality or, in some cases, the perpetrator or the victim is much like the imagined audience. A middle class yuppie perhaps. A young mother. An attractive young student. Another element that makes a great news story is where killers kill without knowing or caring who they are killing. It provides a 'monster' element. It adds to the shock value.
But then there is a killer at large, in our midst, that kills far more than any of these identified psychopaths and certainly kills without the benefit of knowing who he is killing. That serial killer is the President of the United States. Ted Bundy is estimated to have killed 30 people, Jeffery Dahmer, 17, and John Wayne Gacy, over 34. Barack Obama? The tally isn't in yet.

Drone Attacks

Aside from the vast numbers of people that have been killed by American and NATO bombs over the past decade, let us just consider victims of Obama's ongoing campaign of drone bombing in several different countries.

NBC released a report that exposes that the CIA “didn't always know who is it was killing” when human beings had been targeted on the ground. NBC reviewed classified CIA documents for a 14 month period beginning in September 2010 and lists 114 drone strikes that killed as many as 613 people. The reports states, “About one of every four of those killed by drones in Pakistan between Sept. 3, 2010, and Oct. 30, 2011, were classified as "other militants,” the documents detail. The “other militants” label was used when the CIA could not determine the affiliation of those killed, prompting questions about how the agency could conclude they were a threat to U.S. national security.”

The report also highlights so called signature strikes where drone operators may kill people on the ground based on vague information.

As we can see here the victims had a signature consistent with terrorists. (They were carrying camera equipment which was mistaken for weapons.) It's not hard to see why so much emphasis in placed on keeping 'classified' information under wraps.

According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there has been a total of 370 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004; 318 of those under Obama. Between 2,548 and 3,549 people perished in those killings and 168 to 197 of those victims were children. In Yemen, between the years 2002 and 2013, 240 to 349 have been killed in confirmed drone strikes. The report indicates an additional 80 to 99 “possible extra” strikes in Yemen over the same period.

Western media, in its true solopsistic point of view, did run reports last month with some alarm that four Americans had been killed in drone strikes. Their outrage is mitigated by an allegation that these Americans posed some threat to U.S. National security.

The Brutality of Bombing

Currently, there is much noise in the press about allegations that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. They seem to have evidence? These vague reports of poison gas follow alarm at Syrian success against the rebels with the help of Hezbollah. The poison gas allegation follows a bizarre incident where John McCain sneaked into Syria through Turkey to pose with the rebels. Additionally, the Americans are signaling increased mayhem by staging international military exercises in Jordan. The Americans will remain after the exercise are over. An official stated, “It was decided the assets would remain in place,”. The USA has also formally announced they will be arming the Al Qeada extremists and this follows a similar initiative announced by the European Union. The Europeans are especially eager to announce they have proof of the Syrians use of chemical weapons.

You'd almost think they were up to something.

If we have the capacity to consider reality outside the view of the militarized West and we look at the alarm raised when NATO members issue reports that are far more likely to be false than true (that Assad has used poison gas on civilians), we might then consider the horror and terror that is caused by the dropping on bombs on populated areas. Who's to judge what is worse, poison gas or bombs?

We might remember back to the gleeful news reporting on Baghdad when the campaign of 'shock and awe' commenced against the people of Iraq and we might take a moment to reflect on the reality that human beings are crying in terror under that sensational firepower. We might also ask ourselves how the dropping of bombs on people is less brutal than any other type of atrocity. A strong argument can be made that this is the worst of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The official narrative not only turns a blind eye to the dropping of bombs on civilians, it glorifies it.

We might also ask a civilian in war torn Afghanistan or Iraq about how shocked he or she is at the murders committed by Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or John Wayne Gacy. In reality, these murderers are boy scouts in comparison to the almighty war machine we glorify with such gusto.
The ugly truth is – if we turn a blind eye or support these atrocities, we are different to the shocking serial killers we love to hate - in degree; not in kind.

The American Betrayal of Reason

Unthinkable just a decade ago and for hundreds of years before that, reason, arbitrar of humanities excesses and foibles, is losing its authority. Reason, that indomitable enemy of tyrants and thieves is at odds with the most powerful forces ruling humanity. State and private power and control over citizens is antithetical to sovereignty of reason.

There is a seminal battle underway that runs far deeper than wars between nations, religions, or political ideology. It is the fight is between the forces of domination and control vs. reason. Should reason win, fully human lives where each individual can reach his or her potential will return as a real possibility. Should the paradigm of power and control regain its throne, we are doomed to barbarism.

In the 1700s there was a movement afoot, a movement of courage and intelligence that had usurped the arbitrary power of kings, lords, and clerics. That power was replaced with democracy and rule of law. That movement is known as the enlightenment. Through incremental change, reason replaced fear and violence as governors of nations. In the United States however, this change occurred in one dramatic historical moment; the American Revolution.


The Spirit of the American Constitution

Love it or hate it, it is the United States of America that formally adopted enlightenment principles as its basis of law and governance. It championed freedom and justice over all else. Over the past two centuries the American Constitution has been the example to follow, an example of law and governance with built in protections against abuse and tyranny, a philosophical North Star that we have come to depend upon. Its sense of justice is a semi conscious blanket of collective security for Americans and non Americans alike. The United States had become a symbol of governance by reason; a culture of fair play and justice. America's worst enemies could only begrudgingly admire the rational integrity of this bold new social order and, unconsciously or unwittingly, emulated and assimilated its most noble features as their own.

The progressive force of reason, born of the intellectual movement of the 18th century that had broken through the dark ages had legitimized not only rational standards for law and governance, it validated science and cleared the way for technology and innovation to improve the lives for people of all classes. Traditional beliefs and attitudes suffered under the bright light of evidence based initiatives and ideas.

Long before the American Constitution was penned and long before the enlightenment of the 1700s, reason had shaken the capricious power of kings, the cruelty of military violence and the pleasure of petty and grand tyrants. The Magna Charta, born in England in 1215 was one of the most important historical events in this undertaking. It curtailed the power of monarchs and granted a degree of power to rational based authority. Another dated seminal edict was the Habeas Corpus Act established in English law in 1679. Habeas Corpus legacy protects us from any agent that would imprison us at his pleasure.

The Constitution was written as a defense against the myriad of ways and means nefarious agents may wrestle or connive power from the people. It outlined three separate branches of government aimed at entrenching the spirit of the enlightenment, the spirit of reason, as the governing principles of a brave new world.

In response to British domination of the colonies, colonists revolted and drafted their Declaration of Independence. A new form of government was to be established based on citizens having a right to say how they themselves are governed. In the 1700s those that stood against the British imperial monarch were disciples of great enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, and perhaps most importantly at the time, for the United States, Thomas Paine. Enlightenment ideas were an affront to the status quo that ruled nations and its purveyors took great risk espousing their reasonable arguments against monarchs, religion, and traditional structures of all sorts. They were persecuted for their efforts. So too were the courageous colonists that were inspired by Paine's 'Common Sense', rising against established governors, proxies of the British king.

Revolutionaries rose up precisely against imperial power as well as the potential that tyrants would wrestle control at home. This was a cornerstone of the revolution and the rationale for the second and fourth amendments to the Constitution. Today, the citizens of the United States struggle under a rapidly expanding surveillance state that is married to and under the control of private agents, namely large corporations and finance capitalists. It is a state that, like King George's British empire in 1776, aims to own and control not only its own citizens but citizens of all nations.

The spirit of the American Constitution can be summed up in one word and that word is 'reason'. It is the same word that sums up the enlightenment. Further to this and most crucially, the capacity to reason is our natural inheritance as human beings. It is what defines us as a species.

We cannot afford to defer to the reasoning of intellectuals, the media, or economists and politicians. Stakeholders in the game are exactly that and for that reason, they will cultivate private and 'classified' power. Their interests are at odds with ours and we must stop playing their game. Loyalty to individuals, political parties, or ideology is a sell out of our most precious gift and that is our capacity for critical thinking. Critical thinking is synonymous to reason and we, all of us, need to cultivate and appreciate our own free and independent mind.

Barack Obama

Nothing illustrates the betrayal of reason more than the current President of the United States, Barack Obama. It is shocking today to see one time (apparent) critical thinkers reduced to simple and vulgar partisan hacks. After all that has happened and continues to happen during Obama's Presidency, they still maintain a belief that the President and the Democratic Party is a viable choice in opposition to a violent state apparatus; a voice for 'change'. They still seem to think that, given enough time, Obama would (eventually) put in place progressive and just laws and practices. Aside from his words there is little or nothing to show that he is substantially different that the most violent and oppressive elements in America. He has taken the torch from his predecessor, George W Bush, and he is running with it. Together, they have moved the United States of America from rational governance to arbitrary and tyrannical power. They have crossed a line and that line separated modern democracies from arbitrary or built-in tyranny.

Bear in mind, Barack Obama is an expert in Constitutional law. The seeds he is carefully planting, from the murder of citizens and non citizens to waging undeclared war and to spying on all of us is not done under a cloak of ignorance. The President is fully lucid. Precedents are being set that entrenches arbitrary power to be used under a cloak of secrecy. He is laying the structures that make a future Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin not only a possibility, but a given.

The past decade has delivered shock after shock to our collective psyche. It started with a bang, with the invasion of Iraq. This illegal act violated the most elemental of international standards. In the process the Bushs and the Blairs bullied others to join them. They blatantly lied to urge the international community to their 'side'. Since that time torture, dungeons, show trials, Presidential hit lists and ongoing bombings (collective punishment aka terrorism) have become increasingly normalized. Media and intellectuals help with the process of normalizing these horrific affronts to reason and rule of law. They argue that these practices have practical value in the face of terrorist threats. In fact, no serious commentator would touch these arguments with a ten foot pole prior to America's own fire in the Reichstag (9-11). It was a given that if we want a free society, we must tolerate allowing the potential murderer down the street to run free until he actually commits the crime. That is the price of a free society and it is that that separated the USA and it's sphere of influence from the Hitler's Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, and Saudi Arabia.

The most recent and shocking revelation of Obama's reign is that he has secretly been spying on millions of the citizens of the United States and across the globe. This is the latest scandalous expose of many. Obama's response is being caught is that the spying is legal under the Patriot Act, itself a blatant violation of the Constitution. This is further evidence of the violent and paranoid empire that the United States of America has become.

Barack Obama was supposed to be the man to get the United States and consequently the world back on track. This ex community organizer, this professor of Constitutional law held much promise for many people. It was widely believed that if anyone can take the United States back to the realm of reason and rule of law it is Barack Obama. It would be difficult to find someone more qualified.

In the face of the violence being perpetrated by the Obama Administration the most meaningful battle today is exactly this one; private power vs. reason. We can't have both. We should not expect and we cannot expect those with power to fight on the side of reason any more than we could expect kings of the middle ages to do so. It is simply against their interests. They will pretend as they are so accustomed to doing, they will speak in reasonable terms but it is their actions that betray their real intent.

Time to Stand Up

Long before enlightenment ideas moved us out of the feudal muck of the dark ages, human beings employed reason for survival. Contrary to the Hobbsean idea that humanity is ruled by and needs to be ruled by domination, violence, and fear, it was reason that was our species advantage for millions of years in the jungles and savannas of Africa. While lions and wild dogs had strength and teeth and other animals had speed or flight, we had our brains. A brain with the capacity to discern cause and effect and moreover, the hard wiring to share our own thoughts with other human beings. It was cooperation, language, and work that was and is our advantage. In other words, the 'survival of the fittest' rationale for power and privilege is wrong, it is a lie. It is simplistic justification for state or private violence and it is a message that runs through school texts, literature, and through mass media.

Through the hierarchal structures laid out by monarchs and the Catholic Church, the paradigm of power and control, violence, and the coercive and violent state gained a veneer of legitimacy. Insecure cowards relish it as the natural order. The enlightenment itself and throughout history, many great civilizations and societies have stripped this nefarious veneer and utilized better, rational ways of doing the business of being human. We can look to antiquity as well as our own minds to see that the monarchs and the church were lying.

The point is that the forces that we are up against are fighting against our most fundamental characteristics as human beings. If there is such as thing as a natural order, if there is such a thing as human nature, they are against it. Perhaps most poignantly, they are against freedom – save themselves.

At this point we deal with the festering wound that is masquerading as the war on terror. We must check the excessive power of the United States government as well as its many proxy governments and agents over the globe.

The United States of America and all that is under the influence and control of America as an economic and political empire has betrayed the spirit of reason, the enlightenment, and the Constitution. We are at a period in history where we need to do more than win back democratic control of governance. We, the people, actually need to take power into our own hands. Abuse is abuse, it is rampant, and the situation promises to get much worse than it is today. Obama and the current maestros of the state are setting precedents, the stage, for a frightening new world.

We have a choice. We can stand up now or, we can stand up later.

Western Persistence With Mid East Bloodbath

The risk of the regional bloodbath through Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East turning into a global bloodbath is high and getting higher by the day.

America's Middle East gambit has become considerably more dangerous since the Russians have defiantly announced that they will be sending S-300 anti-aircraft weapons to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The conflict is already spilling into and influencing the region. Germany and the United States warned Russia not to send the weapons systems(1). At a meeting in Sochi, Russia, between Russia's Vladamir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Netanyahu threatened to destroy the missiles before they would become operational. Earlier, Netanyahu warned Russia that the weapons delivery could “send the region deteriorating into war”. (2)

Both the Israelis and the Americans consistently proclaim that they will raise the stakes when faced with disobedience and they threaten horrific responses if any third party lends support of any kind to the enemy du jour. At his point, they are playing with more than fire.

American Meddling in Syria

The United States have been coordinating the current ongoing bloodbath in Syria from the outset. On August 1, 2012 Reuters reported “the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.” Further, “...along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad's opponents.” (3)

As we have seen in Libya and elsewhere, the United States, under President Obama, is operating an ongoing war machine through third party proxies. Britain and France appear to take the lead in Europe. Middle Eastern hitmen include Saudi Arabia and Turkey. They lead, other's follow.

Aside from the covert support to the 'extremists', the Obama has been providing millions in “non lethal” or “humanitarian” assistance to Al Qeada and other enemies of Assad's government.

The Americans have bullied their European counterparts to end the European arms embargo against the rebel forces. “Britain and France had backed the proposal to send weapons to the militants, while other countries, such as Austria, Sweden, Finland, and the Czech Republic, opposed the move. “ (4)

This was followed by a visit to Syria by Senator John McCain who was spirited into Syria though Turkey. He used his foray to portray being 'on the ground' to voice with authority that the Syrian rebels need “heavy weapons”. (5) To maintain his domestic and disingenuous public image at home, Obama needs McCain and other hawks to pose as aggressors in the region in the same way he needs foreign nations such as France and the UK to posture themselves as the main players as they had done in Libya. Americans are becoming weary of endless war and will not support yet one more round of sacrificing thousands of young men and women for nefarious goals that are unseen. The propaganda machine needs more time. “Sixty-eight percent of Americans say the United States should not use military action in Syria to attempt to end the civil war there if diplomatic and economic efforts fail, while 24% would favor U.S. military involvement.” (6)

Iraqi Bloodletting Continues

While most observers would contend that the American 'mission' in Iraq has been a colossal failure, another thesis would suggest that things are going according to plan. That thesis suggests that de-stabalization of the whole Middle East (with the exception of compliant dictatorships) is exactly what Washington's game plan is. “It may be that the United States had no intention of destroying the Taliban or Al Qeada. If we look at outcomes, we may conclude; on the contrary. The pattern suggests that the Americans aim to empower the clerics throughout the Middle East and to destroy the more secular and rationally based governments.” (7)

The carnage in Iraq is ramping up due in part to the ongoing strife next door in Syria. As Jason Ditz reports, “ The month of April had sparked major concerns about the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq, with a death toll the highest it had been since Summer 2008. In April, “The overall (death) toll was 460, for the entire month, meaning May is set to blow past it dramatically.”(8)

The upshot is, the United States has successfully ushered in an era of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq and that tension not only serves the United States, it serves Israel. The situation in Iraq will likely deteriorate further into all out civil war. And as it does, Netanyahu, Washington, and their acolytes will stoke the fires.

Danger on the Road Ahead

It may very well be that Vladimir Putin does not take orders from Israel. Netanyahu's demand to not sell anti-aircraft missiles to Assad may fall on deaf ears. And if history teaches us anything, it should teach us that Russia's sovereignty is not a plaything for the West or anyone else. Russia is not backing down from their lukewarm support of nations that stand in defiance of Washington's and Israel's dictates.

In 2006 Israel was humiliated when they attacked Lebabon. Hezbollah sent them packing. Iran, a formidable force itself is not backing down from openly supporting Assad and with now with Russia also showing defiance to the West/Israel, anything can happen.

For its part, Russia appears to be acting rationally and opposing military adventurism outside rule of law and outside the Security Council. It is likley that Russia is increasingly uncomfortable with Washington's ongoing war/ regime change adventures through the Middle East. The Russian Ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin said, “Our experiences in the last few years in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Libya prove that any action undertaken outside the Security Council and the wrong implementation of its resolutions has very bad implications that we will not be able to solve.” (9)

Fractures in the international community are becoming apparent as players jockey for position for the upcoming Syrian peace talks, aimed, ostensibly, to promote peace. Western and rebel belligerence is in full view. Opposition Rebels are demanding that Assad's government be excluded from the talks and France is demanding that Iran not be included. For its part, Syria, emboldened by recent gains against the rebels, will not bend to demands that Assad step down. "Our armed forces have regained the momentum," said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. "From now until the next elections, President Bashar Assad is president of the Syrian Arab Republic.” (10)

The Americans, as we have now come to expect, are unabashedly militaristic and aggressive as they fully intend to derail any chance for peace. White House spokesman, Jay Carney said in the buildup to the peace talks, "Every option remains on the table. That of course includes a no-fly zone. It is inaccurate to suggest that option was in development only now. (10)

Whether we agree that Russia is a rational player committed to rule of law on the world stage or not, the risks are not lessened if indeed they are. They are not lessened because we cannot reasonably make the argument that Washington is either rational on the world stage or committed to rule of law. They simply are not. The Americans, the Israelis and their underlings have other unseen agendas at play and they appear to be not only provocative and aggressive, but dangerous, not only to people that live in the Middle East but to the world at large. As abrasive as this statement seems to be, it is hardly controversial. The solopsistic nature of the American state is frequently displayed on the world stage for all to see. In a recent example, John Kerry chastised Hezbollah for aiding the Syrian government against Al Qeada rebels saying, “There are several thousands of Hezbollah militia forces on the ground in Syria who are contributing to this violence and we condemn that.” (11) More disturbingly, “A senior State Department official told the Washington Post that Iranian forces are fighting in Syria, repeating totally unsubstantiated allegations by the “rebels” as fact. (11) As the Post pointed out, “The US official’s allegation was a tacit acknowledgment that the two-year Syrian conflict has become a regional war and a de facto US proxy fight with Iran.” (11)

The potential for this conflict to merge with conflicts in Iraq, to spread to Lebanon and Turkey and to be used as a staging area for aggression against Iran is high. In fact, these things are already occurring. The potential that an expanded regional conflict with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia on one side facing down Israel, the West, and Al Qeada on the other is also high; and is already occurring.

References

1. http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-germany-to-russia-dont-send-assad-missiles/
2. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-threatened-to-hit-s-300s-before-they-came-online/
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801
4. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/29/306141/iran-slams-eu-for-lifting-syria-arms-ban/
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/john-mccain-syrian-rebels_n_3368036.html
6. http://www.gallup.com/poll/162854/americans-oppose-military-involvement-syria.aspx
7. http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/25747-saudi-model.html
8. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/21/over-400-killed-in-a-week-of-iraqi-violence/
9. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/May-22/217919-russia-opposes-forced-syria-regime-change.ashx#axzz2Uu2WUPO0
10. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/29/syria-peace-talks-in-jeopardy
11. http://www.globalresearch.ca/behind-syria-peace-talks-us-prepares-regional-war/5336100

A Creeping Feudal Order

A study carried out by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, based in the United States, shows that the United States is the only nation of 21 “rich countries” where employers are not required to provide paid vacation leave for their employees. What may come as a shock to North Americans, of the countries studied, five require employers to pay a little extra to help with vacation related expenses.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/no-vacation-nation-2013

France and the United Kingdom top the list with 30 and 28 paid vacation days respectively.

The statistics reflect an attitude about the quality of life people expect in Europe vs. North America. Canada is far more advanced than the United States in this respect but well behind all the European nations surveyed. Canada has a minimum of 10 vacation days and 9 statutory holidays. All European nations require employers to provide 20 paid holidays per year.

This study hints at a much bigger and dangerous reality. It reflects an attitude of contempt of the working class that is most pronounced in the United States. This attitude of contempt is reflected in the policies of austerity that have been pushed by the IMF and the Federal Reserve and it runs through ruling circles across the globe (with a few exceptions). Even though austerity policies have been a colossal failure, they continue to push this cruel attack against the poor and the middle class. It is an attitude of contempt that runs so deep and it is so entrenched that they are biting off the hands that feed them.

Freedom and Security

The term 'freedom' is bandied about in the United States like a mantra. This is especially true of self described libertarians, the ideological force driving neo liberal economic policies. Their focus is entirely on freedom from the state; that is, freedom from taxes and its concomitant freedom from any type of social responsibility.

The problem with this peculiar and specific notion of freedom results in slavery and destitution for people that are on the lower end of the economic spectrum. With no or very little by way of a shrinking social safety net, employers are granted tremendous power. This reality is an open field for abuse of workers. If they don't behave the way the boss wants, they may be fired. The sheer horror of that reality when no other jobs exist and where very little in terms of public services exist results in a very real system of wage slavery.

On the other hand, they are not so eager to stop spending on the coercive state apparatus; the side of that apparatus that is related to 'national security'. This use of the term security is related only to security of the state and the corporate greedsters that control it. Food security, health care security, housing security is a whole other matter. Its all about the class that benefits, not the health of the whole nation/nations.

These Ayn Randists emphasize individualism and abhor social health or anything that enriches the commons. Their fear is that the expansion of the public sphere to the provision of services and goods to all citizens may curtail power for those on the top end to arbitrarily fire workers and compromise their freedom to not pay taxes. To the extent the public sphere is expanded, freedom and security for citizens is expanded.

This libertarian dream to privatize anything and everything has a malicious and selfish intent. The owners of wealth can control access to human needs and they may demand a price for whatever it is the individual needs. The logical extension of the neo liberal dream is not only enslavement but a return to a system of quasi-feudalism where the wealthy class not only own everything, they also control everything.

The United States has already traveled well down this barbaric and brutal road. Canada and Europe are not far behind.

In this climate of excessive wealth and power, the creeping private sphere is taking control of what certainly belong to the public domain. No human being should suffer and die due to lack of access to vital needs such as medicine, shelter, or food. This is a quiet and pernicious violence perpetrated against those most in need. A poor person in a nation with little by way of public services is certainly neither free nor secure. His counterpart on the other end of the spectrum is not only secure and free but has realized the dream of arbitrary power.

This notion of freedom is shoved down the throats of victims through media and through the quisling political whores that crave to meet at Bilderberg or, to even shake the hands of those that meet at Bilderberg. They emulate those that have the privilege of setting the agenda, legislation, and defining what is important and what is not.

On the other hand, many of those adversely affected by this so called freedom will fight and die for it as if its their own. But many of these folks have little choice; its either joining the army or working at McDonalds. As for those they are really fighting and dying for, the truly free; they are on vacation.

The Counterfeit Left

The fuzzy nebulous cloud widely known as 'liberals' may be more a threat to the well being of the working classes (aka: the middle class) and the poor than the screaming, manic right. Obama illustrates and verifies this point; not by his words, but by his actions. And it is right there we spot the enemy in our midst.

The manic right stand out like flames in the night. They stand for their own principles and will rarely concede some select issues to protect their own core neo liberal beliefs. They will fight to the death for every inch. They are precisely what they seem to be.

Herd Mentality

The line between right wing liberals and apparent leftists is blurry, especially in the USA since Obama was elected. The differences can be seen however where points of friction occur. There is undoubtedly a large percentage of bona fide leftists that identify themselves as liberals and there is also a large portion that are actually right wingers posing as liberals. This may be due to identification with liberals on social issues. These liberals may actually see capitalism as a great panacea and believe that profit taking has the potential to care for those that are unable to work for a living. Not even the most rabid right winger would suggest this but, among liberals, that naive attitude runs rampant.

The phenomena where liberals remain loyal to Obama may have much to do with a team sports mentality; us vs them. That hard mentality seems to render previous critical thinkers, stunned. There are many examples. Two that jump to mind are Michael Moore and Bill Maher.

There are opportunities to observe real beliefs beneath the public image. Within the great halls of liberalism, image is everything. A recent confrontation between Bill Maher and constitutional expert and political journalist, Glen Greenwald, betrayed Maher's carefully crafted image. Link here to view the debate:

Maher's language betrays him. Language like 'our side' in reference to the global atrocities committed by his political leader and his strident defense of all things Obama suggests the same inhuman view of Muslims as Tony Blair or Maher's professed nemesis, George W Bush.

Whatever political tradition Greenwald identifies with we can say with certainty that he is a substantial and thoughtful intellect and as such, loyal only to principles, not popular bandwagons. There are many others like him; Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Norman Solomon, and many others are steeped in integrity and secure in their views. However, these substantive intellectuals are included within the same blurry concept called liberalism whether they identify themselves that way or not.

Social Democrats

Social democrats have been painting lipstick on the capitalist pig even before John Maynard Keynes showed a way to trickle wealth down to lower classes. His efforts to stave off a threatening groundswell of anti-capitalist sentiment during the great depression worked and re-validated the so called free enterprise system. Now that Keynes is dead, seemingly, they will scramble to either spin war and unbridled capitalism in brave new ways or, they may come up with ways to soft-sell austerity, perhaps with hints of New Deal elements.

Their analysis will never penetrate deep enough to show that wealth that trickles down is created by workers in the first place. Neither will they probe the failings of Keynesian policies. Social democrats are weak on substance but strong on spin and the manufacture of plastic politicians.

Last month (April 2013) the Canadian social democratic NDP (New Democratic Party) voted to remove references to the term 'socialism' from the party's constitution. The NDP has been ratcheting their way rightward since the 60s and now believe they have secured the top of the pragmatic and unprincipled center. At that same convention, members were ordered to remove a banner critical of Obama's drone strikes in order not to offend Obama's national field director who was scheduled to speak.

In the 1990s Britain's Labour Party made a sharp move to the right, distancing itself from whatever ties remained to real egalitarian principles. In 1997 so called 'new labour' was to sweep in its champion, Tony Blair who, as Prime Minister, helped the party move past the center to the conservative right. It would be hard to imagine a more right wing politician than Tony Blair still posing as anything close to moderate. While Blair frequently hypes up the threat of extremism, an examination of his views can only lead one to conclude that his views differ little, if at all, from the extreme right. Former Conservative Prime Minister recently said, “I remember joking once that I had gone swimming in the River Thames and left my clothes on the bank and when I got back, Tony Blair was wearing them.” 1

The vulgar opportunist that is Tony Blair cannot be overstated. His support for weapons companies though hawkish war mongering have paid off large. “The £2m-plus annual fee from JP Morgan Chase... the $250,000 for a 45-minute speech on the US lecture circuit... the all-expenses paid jaunts to Jerusalem as the Quartet's (ineffectual) Middle East envoy... it all serves as a reminder to members of the western political elite of the enormous financial rewards that will come their way if they toe the line.” 2

In 2007 “BAE systems is (was) alleged, by British media, to have secretly paid Saudi Prince Bandar more than £1bn in connection with Britain's biggest ever weapons contract. There have been demands for an investigation. In response to this, Tony Blair decided to stop the Serious Fraud Office from investigating alleged bribery relating to the BAE contract with Saudi Arabia. It involves a £43 billion arms deal.” 3

He said he didn't want to sour relations with the Saudi dictators.

Tony Blair's habit of turning tricks on Downing street only show his pragmatic side. He is as John Major suggests, a right wing ideologue. He persists in urging the Labour Party to the right and he persists in his his thirst for blood in the Middle East.

The USA

Bill Clinton is as responsible for the financial meltdown that began in 2008 as the banks. Depending on how we look at it, we could say he was even more complicit than the banks. He was in cahoots with them as was his co-conspirator, Sen. Phil Gramm. The reason he is responsible is because he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, a move the banks could not pull off without political stooges doing their bidding. That particular De-regulation paved the way for large banks to use, abuse, and ruin the lives of their customers and the economy as a whole. The result was a bonanza for the banks and they utilized a myriad of mesmerizing shell games to reap unprecedented profits.

And what does Clinton get? Like Tony Blair, he continues to reap benefits from his nefarious dealings. “ Clinton teamed up with Tony Blair at private equity and consulting group Teneo Capital, one of whose clients was MF Global, the bankrupt broker-dealer run by former New Jersey Sen. and Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine. After losing bets taken with client money, MF Global collapsed. And despite a swirl of controversy, no criminal charges will be filed against Corzine. There’s no evidence that the payoff to Clinton made a difference in the Department of Justice’s position, but then, it couldn’t have hurt.”

“He received $125,000 in cash apiece from Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse just two months after signing the bill deregulating derivatives. His speaking arrangements, a well-known conduit to funnel cash to retired politicians, has garnered him over $80 million since 2001, a substantial amount of which has come from the financial services industry he helped.”

“In 2010, Clinton received a six-figure cash payment from the American Chamber of Commerce in Cairo, one of many payments he received from groups with significant policy interests before the State Department run by his spouse.”

In 2011 “Clinton received six-figure cash payments from Goldman Sachs ($200,000), HSBC Securities ($200,000), Fidelity Investments ($175,000), TD Bank ($260,000), Itau BBA USA Securities ($175,000), privatization specialist Highstar Capital ($175,000), Jefferies and Co. ($200,000), UBS Wealth Management ($165,000 and $150,000), American Express ($250,000), TD Ameritrade ($200,000), Highland Capital ($175,000), Wells Fargo ($200,000), the Association for Financial Professionals ($175,000) and Bank of America Merrill Lynch ($200,000).” 4

Aside from sleazy dealings and large kick-backs, the ethical profile of liberals in general is as bad as that of the extreme right. Considering the reality of their political maneuvering, their skill at hoodwinking not only the public but many journalists, especially those employed by large private interests, they are much worse.

The criminal performance of Barack Obama as President is hard to even fathom. This former professor of constitutional law openly boasts about murdering people. Prior to Obama, murders were carried out but they were not openly displayed for all to see. Obama's murdering rampage is its own sick and macabre reality television show. Aside from ongoing drone strikes on innocent people, where all that is apparently needed to murder somebody is 'intelligence' from a local yokel, let's consider one event.

Beyond the callous notion that the President can kill foreigners if somebody claims them to be a threat, Obama murdered 16 year old Abdulrahman Awlaki, the son of Anwar Awlaki as he was making his way to a barbecue in Yemen. His crime was that he was his father's son. Officials say that he was not the intended target. The vile bastards are not bragging about this 'hit'. His father, Anwar, was murdered by Obama two weeks prior. The drone strike also killed eight other people that happened to be nearby.

The President has a 'kill list'; a list that he personally oversees. "The president of the United States believes that he has the power to order people killed, assassinated, in total secrecy, without any due process, without transparency or oversight of any kind,". 5

Obama is also responsible for a massive security apparatus where spying on citizens has become normalized. As the security state continues to expand and impinge on citizens, unabated. The latest development is the expected support from the Administration to back up FBI proposed “sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws.” 6

Obama isn't only contemptuous of the American Constitution. He has regressed legal progress back to before the Magna Carta.

Obama is fully aware of the precedents he sets when he openly violates these legal basis. If we contemplate what that is about, we may feel a shudder; we should.

Although we live in interesting times, they promise to get far more 'interesting'. The Dow Jones Industrial Average passed 15,000 for the first time ever. This wealth is a mirage created by the Federal Reserve. Its basis rests in ether. It will collapse and it will crash hard. And while this dizzying expansion of capital occurs, folks on the ground are suffering. And as this fiasco is perpetrated against good people everywhere, conservatives and social democrats alike dance to the tune called by large finance capitalists.

At some point you will need to seriously ask yourself: What side am I on?

References

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/12/tony-blair-right-wing-says-john-major_n_1589295.html

2. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/24457/tony-blairs-reward-following-right-foreign-policy#ixzz2SzubzAlX

3. http://leftlite.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00:00:00-04:00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00:00:00-04:00&max-results=6

4. http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/clintons_no_liberal_hero/
5. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/30/glenn_greenwald_obamas_secret_kill_list

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/politics/obama-may-back-fbi-plan-to-wiretap-web-users.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Saudi Model

The United States of America’s long term goal for the Middle East is to establish Saudi type dictatorships throughout the volatile oil rich region. One of the main objectives toward that goal is the destabilisation of unpredictable or disobedient regimes such as the current Assad regime in Syria.

Destabilisation as Objective

As outrageous a hypotheses this may seem, it has the power to explain America’s foreign policy in the Middle East for the past decade. While it may seem ludicrous that the USA would empower radical Islamist movements over stable governments, the fact remains that the USA has been carrying out a campaign of de-stabilization from Libya to Iran to Pakistan with many stops in between.

As suggested here
“It may be that the United States had no intention of destroying the Taliban or Al Qeada. If we look at outcomes, we may conclude; on the contrary. The pattern suggests that the Americans aim to empower the clerics throughout the Middle East and to destroy the more secular and rationally based governments.”

The fact is that both the Taliban and Al Qeada have been empowered more than ever thanks to the war on terror. The Taliban have become more a threat inside Pakistan than ever and Al Qaeda is operating with impunity in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East. If we consider the outcomes of Western interventions as opposed to what the stated goals of these interventions had been, we can only conclude that the American State Department, the Pentagon, NATO, the CIA/Homeland Security have taken the concept of incompetence to a rather bizarre new level. It is not simple incompetence, it is a matter of making America’s own officially stated nightmare come true. There’s something not right about this picture.

Western agitation in Syria shows no sign of abating; on the contrary. Assad, like Saddam, is a Bathist and like Gaddafi and Saddam, quasi socialist. Western media showed real excitement several weeks ago when they had reports of weapons of mass destruction used by Syria against the rebels. They have stopped reporting on it and this can only mean that either there were no chemical weapons or, it was the rebels that were using them as alleged by Assad.

The Americans have wizard-like skill in bringing disparate groups together for a common cause. It is amazing what billions of dollars in arms and cash can do. But it will be the people of Syria and the region that will not only suffer war, but the very unstable morning after.

Western imperial models of interference in other nations show well established pattern of exploiting chauvinistic divisions in all societies. When Shias are attacking Sunnis and vice versa, they are doing unpaid ground work for the State Department. Divide and conquer techniques in Ireland pitting Catholics against Protestants have worked very well in terms of the British Empires objectives. It’s an effective modus operandi that has been employed by Empires in every corner of the globe for many centuries.

Destabilising Pakistan

Musharraf’s return may fit into the ongoing destabilisation efforts of Pakistan. On the other hand, he may on his own, apart from Washington’s directives. Considering the scant media attention on his return, this is probably accurate.

Relations with the West have been increasingly strained in the past number of years. Previous to this, Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, was supportive of Afghanistan’s Taliban. Musharrif was an obedient puppet. As soon as Washington declared the Taliban an enemy, he followed suit. This has created much internal strife in the country. The United States however have much influence due to the billions of American tax dollars that go to Pakistan. Of course, this aid (like much of the aid handed out all over the world) is a way to funnel large sums of tax dollars into the hands of arms sellers and private contractors. There are undoubtedly a significant number of powerful Pakistanis, both in the military and outside the military that benefit from this aid; it certainly does buy influence.

Public relations between Pakistan and the West have been deteriorating and continue to do so. Fractures and strains both domestically and internationally make Pakistan a very unstable situation. Pakistan has been showing increasing levels of disobedience and Western politicians and media are openly critical and suspicious of that government. Mike Mullen, past chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “The Haqqani network...acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence Agency” and blamed them for an attack on the American Embassy in Kabul.

This level of distrust of the Haqqani group and its concomitant distrust of Pakistan government places Pakistan on the very same ground as Syria, Gaddafi’s Libya, or any state that does not fit with Washington’s long term goals and objectives. Drone strikes continue unabated in Pakistan, further exacerbating already strained relations. The blatant and widely boasted murder of Osama bin laden has not helped the situation.
The likelihood that Pakistan will remain stable over the next decade is remote. Pakistan is armed with nukes. If the USA needs a Saudi king, the need is no greater than in Pakistan.

Syria

According to the New York Times,
“With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.”

The times article points out that the United States, Turkey, and other nations are coordinating large and frequent arms shipments from places such as Crotia.
Hassan Aboud, a commander of one of the rebel groups operating in Syria said, “There are fake Free Syrian Army brigades claiming to be revolutionaries, and when they get the weapons they sell them in trade”. The extent to which the weapons are sold for profit by local criminals isn’t known but given the various elements at play, there can be little doubt many faux rebels are getting very wealthy. The additional problem with this, for the West, is that it is likely that those same weapons will be used against the USA.

Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, The United States, Crotia and others are involved in these frequent massive arms shipments to forces opposed to Assad.
After two years of fighting the opposition forces and more importantly, those facilitating them seem more determined than ever in their efforts to topple Assad.. At this point, heavy fighting is reported in Damascus and an attack on the University of Damascus has killed 15 students.
From the sidelines, the whole affair looks like an enormous disaster as well as a threat for the West and potentially, and most especially, Israel. Syrian destabilization may be key to the destabilization of the whole area. This will threaten Iran as well as unintended collaterals. Neighbours like Lebanon may be affected but if this hypothesis is correct, Lebanon must also fall.

The Arab League has formally recognized the Syrian rebels and Qatar has recently opened up an embassy in recognition of the Syrian opposition as Syria’s government. Qatar is an excellent example of the Saudi model. It is brutal and does not tolerate dissent. It enforces strict Islamic law. This result is a population free from dissent or trouble of any kind. The trains run on time and it is very easy to control.

Qatar may also be remembered for its enthusiastic recognition of the National Transition Council during the hostilities to usurp Gaddafi’s less than enthusiastic obedience to Western directives. Qatar showed it’s eager subservience to Washington by becoming the second nation (after France) to do so.

Progressive elements to governments in the Middle East are in the process of being wiped out in favour of a return to regressive and absolute feudal rule. The destabilization of Iran through internal dissent, a government that is both ruled through democratic elections as well as the Leader of the Revolution, or, Supreme Leader, may be seen as futile. Assassination may also be futile and pointless. Destabilization through war may get Washington closer to its objectives.
An era of destabilization rife with terrorism and competing religious factions waging civil war against each other may appears to be in the cards.

Israel

Israel will be in very deep trouble if this hypothesis has merit.
The instability in Egypt, Syria, general Palestinian suffering at Israel’s hand and the general antipathy throughout the Middle East place Israel in a very precarious place. As is often the case, what is promoted as increased security is anything but. Attacking Iran may push their tender situation over a tipping point.

Israeli citizens need to look at the history of American pragmatism when it comes to foreign affairs. When any nation, movement, or individual are no longer useful, they are either forgotten or finished off. Should the Saudi model gambit fail, and it will, Israel will be in a very difficult place. On the other hand, we would be hard pressed to find anything more hawkish than an Israeli politician. Obviously, there are no shortage of hawks within the voting population. Perhaps the people of Israel have considered many of the factors and dynamics that are considered here but choose to maintain settlements, Palestinian oppression, and war with Iran. We must also consider however that many Israelis are friends of their neigbours and want more than anything else, peace.

To accept the idea that the United States would be as ruthless and irresponsible as this article suggests would suggest something beyond scepticism regarding Uncle Sam. It would suggest something beyond cynicism. It would suggest a belief that the USA, NATO, and many of its allies conspire to buy leaders in the Muslim world and pay them to work against their own people. It further suggests that they have no qualms about waging war, killing scores of innocent civilians, and oppressing whole regions of the world in order to eventually control them.

That sounds about right.

Our Great Historical Dilemma

The lengths the great media circus will go to to make sure we are not alarmed has long crossed the line beyond irresponsibility to criminal collusion. Perhaps collusion isn't the best term since it implies a separate entity is colluding with a criminal entity. In this case, they are one and the same. Approximaltey 90% of media we typically use is owned by six very large corporations. It is in their interests that we are pacified and docile.
In the meantime, nations, communities, and individuals suffer one economic blow after another. Be patient 'they' tell us, the 'recovery' is sluggish.

The problem is far deeper than economists and politicians will admit.

The Productivity Problem

In a refreshing and poignant article in Global Research entitled 'Recession, Depression or Jobless Recovery? Long-Term Unemployment under “Neoliberal Capitalism”' by Alan Nasser (Feb. 1, 2013),the dilemma imposed by what John Maynard Keynes dubbed 'technological unemployment' suggests that labour itself is becoming obsolete. As technology advances well ahead of the inertia of the political and economic gatekeepers of capitalism, labour forces are becoming increasingly polarized. What is being rapidly eliminated is the mid skill, mid pay occupations that have been the spending stimulant and tax base of advanced nations. “The job market is bifurcating into high skill, high paying, advanced-education jobs at one extreme, and low skill, low paying, low education jobs at the other. Disappearing are occupations in the middle of the skill and pay distribution.”

If we consider the logic of this observation we may also consider the speed and insatiable drive for firms to bring production costs down. In this effort, human labour is eliminated or reduced; profits go up and so does unemployment. The logical extension of this trend will eventually eliminate human labour as a relevant factor in the production of things and in providing services. While arguments have been made that technology will plateau and whatever is left of a workforce will be secure, the fact is that microchip technology is not the same as a car or any other single utility technological development where plateaus occur rather quickly. Microchip technology is more akin to electricity where the potential may never be fully realized.

In the 1980s Western governments hitched their ride to the neo liberal train. As Nasser points out in his article, the recoveries of 1970, 1975, and 1982 resulted in recovering employment. The recessions of 1991, 2001, and 2009 have seen a ratcheting up of long term unemployment. That is not to say we can blame it all on neo liberals. They are simple whores suited to the times. The real problem is well beyond ideology or idealism of any sort.

Nasser points out that while much has been made of the problem of offshoring, the real crux of the matter is that human labour is in competition with technology. We are not competing with Asians that will work harder, longer, and cheaper than we in the West are accustomed to; We are competing with machines that will work far longer, harder, and cheaper than any human. As Nasser points out: “Over the period 1995-2002, China lost 15 million manufacturing jobs, the US lost 2 million and the whole world lost 22 million manufacturing jobs. The great majority of these jobs were lost to automation and other productivity-enhancing innovations.”

The production capacity of firms and nations has grown tremendously over the past few decades. It will grow much more. As a result human beings increasingly do without. Vast manufacturing centres rust away while people need work. The commodities that people need in order to survive are becoming more difficult to obtain. The situation is utterly absurd. Solving the production problem should be a reason for celebration but, as it is, it may lead us to barbarism.

Living in the Past

We are married to an obsolete social and political means of getting things done. It's as if the caterpillar refuses to be a butterfly. The reason people are homeless, starving, and unemployed is not the fault of technology. The profit motive itself with plenty of help from the state prohibits human beings with little or no money from producing or obtaining what is needed. The capacity to produce enough is secure. Production does not occur unless Johnny can make on his investment however.

What has not been solved is the distribution problem. That is a problem that capitalism not only cannot solve, it will do whatever it takes with whatever means possible to stop it from being solved. It is right here that capitalism shifts from a glorified system of greed to a pernicious system of social cancer. As an abstract system, the bent to harm human beings is baked into the software.

We have entered a pivotal historical period. It is as if the future of the material/technological world has imposed itself upon us in spades. Yet here we remain, stuck is some quasi feudal system which is increasingly polarized between those that have and those that don't. And as time marches on, our social worlds tend toward backward. The state is becoming increasingly less rational and more brutal. Our social trajectory to the future has gone in reverse. Ironically, the figurehead steering the direction was a professor of constitutional law. Where we have been plied with Kyensian sugar in the past, we will find the cruel barbs of the state apparatus in the future. There is seemingly no limit on the capacity to spend on weapons, war, and state security but for human beings austerity, starvation, and war.

On the other hand we have much room for optimism. With the production problem solved, more or less, we have the possibility of obtaining the material we need to survive and to be comfortable. The reduction/abolition of work is a very positive development in human history.

It is up to us to solve the distribution problem.