You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Propaganda' category.
Lets start this post by defining “doctrinal.”
Oxford English Dictionary
doctrinal |ˈdäktrənl|
adjective
concerned with a doctrine or doctrines : doctrinal disputes.
doctrine |ˈdäktrin|
noun
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group : the doctrine of predestination.
• a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs : the Monroe Doctrine.
More generally, a doctrine is a belief taught by a power structure, someone or something with the power to enforce beliefs. While a parent is not considered a power structure, such as the World Bank, for a child, their parent has a high degree of control over them in terms of their economics and in terms of the trust that children have for their parents, so the parent has the ability to enforce a doctrine or belief system on the child.
We use the term doctrinal to describe the repetition of inflexible or even false beliefs on the part of individuals. People who repeat doctrine in an unthinking manner are considered “indoctrinated”
One very good example of doctrinal behavior is found in this video below. In it Jim Rogers describes what he thinks are the correct actions to take given a financial crisis. He is shown being interviewed by a number of network interviewers who are asking him questions which have a number false premises. The interviewees have both a limited ability to work with the concepts that Jim Rogers is discussing and thus their questions tend towards the doctrinal. However, there is a second reason for this inflexibility, which is happening behind the scenes. The interviewers appear to be being fed questions from their network editors. The like of questioning appears to support the notion that the network is in favor of a particular course of action…in this case using taxpayer money to bailout financial institutions.
Thinking for oneself is an often praised attribute. However, what is not discussed is how small a market there is for it and how people who think for themselves are often at odds with their employers and with their social support structure. The education system is doctrinal. While it well understood that education up to the high school level is doctrinal, many presume that as education level goes up, that more critical thinking takes place. This is a misunderstanding. The education system is doctrinal even to the PhD level. PhD dissertations must be approved by committiees, and very few people will obtain a PhD unless their committiees agree with both the quality as well as the doctrine and conclusions of the dissertation. One can be sure that dissertations which do not serve the interest of the committee members, or contradict the previous work of the committeee members will be tolerated. After years of effort, people generally want to get their PhDs, so its a small matter to make the necessary changes. However, it rarely comes to that as the PhD candidate will typically figure out long before this time what conclusions are necessary to garner approval from the committee and will adjust their research accordingly. One may think that after a PhD is conferred that the person is then free to express their own view. However, this is not true as that PhD’s career success will depend upon publishing articles in specific periodicals. These periodicals have particular standards, and particular doctrinal tests. Furthermore, endowments and contributions from corporate interests provide incentives for the university power structure, decentralized to departments, to promote research consistent with corporate doctrines.
Why So Indoctrinated?
The main reason that people are so indoctrinated is that there is a tremendous amount of effort spent in indoctrinating them, and that their perceived incentives are to continue to be indoctrinated. As most people work for other people, they do not have the luxury of “going their own way,” they must conform to the doctrine of their superiors. While they could live a dual life (stating they believe in public, while holding different views in public), in all frankness, most people have little concern with what is true and false and would prefer to be contented and successful over developing their mind. In a world of trade-offs, the desire for a nice house and comfortable life as well as enhanced access to desirable mating partners tends to trump the desire to investigate underlying assumptions. This is evidenced by the emphasis given to material acquisition vs. the acquisition of knowledge in most societies.
When Doctrine Does Not Work
Accepting the programming is often functional for the individual and makes them appealing to employers. however it is not always functional. We have seen how the doctrine of finance and economics has really worked against many people. The doctrine of investing in the stock market and in expensive housing has been very economically damaging to individuals while very profitable for concentrated financial power.
Much has been made of the association of Obama with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, which was a lightweight terrorist organization back during the Vietnam war. We rightly call them lightweight because they called ahead of time to evacuate the buildings they set bombs in, and were more about raising awareness through extreme methods rather than killing. They were of greatest threat to themselves as a bomb creation mishap did kill several of the members of the Weather Underground. A detailed account of them can be seen at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
However, what is not discussed is what Ayers and the Weather Underground was protesting. They were protesting the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War the US illegally bombed at least three countries (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), generally accepted estimates are that this lead to the death of 3.5 million people, the dissolution of civil society in Cambodia allowing the Khmer Rouge to come to power and other negative outcomes that have left these countries in an extremely bad state. This bad state extends to the present day, and will extend to the future. A huge amount of unexploded bombs has made amputees of many in the areas that were bombed. The invasion of Vietnam was illegal, as were the bombings of Laos and Cambodia. Strange it is that Bill Ayers, who killed no one, but was responsible for property damage is considered a terrorist by conservatives, yet one of the main architects of Vietnam and a person directly responsible for taking the bombing to Laos and Cambodia is considered a lauded specialist in international relations. That would be Henry Kissinger. This brings up the question of what really is illegal. Is something illegal if it is done by a powerful country against a weaker country? What Bill Ayers did could certainly be considered justified as a way of increasing the costs of the Vietnam War to America. What else were his options? In an only slightly democratic society (notice how long a majority of the population opposed the war and how long it continued) like the US, there is little but violent action that will change its course. This is the root of terrorism of the weak against the strong, an inability to change policy through rational and peaceful means. As much as large power centers complain about terrorism, they are really referring to the very minor terror of citizens against them The US had no excuse of self protection against the Vietnamese. There was no Soviet threat, and Vietnam posed zero risk to the US. There Vietnamese were not coming to invade Peoria. This was a colonial war prosecuted after the power vaccum left when the French, who had their own illegal Vietnam War with 40,000 casualties withdrew from the area. Furthermore there was no South Vietnam and elections in Vietnam were on course until the Kennedy Administration manipulated by the CIA decided to assasinate Diem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Diem
The entire basis for the war, that the US was protecting South Vietnamese independence was pure fiction. (See below for support for these contentions. Its long, but worth it. If you respond to this post without watching this in its entirety, you won’t have a good basis for a response and I will delete the reply.)
US education and media has done its job, so not only do most Americans not know these facts, they can not interpret them properly when they are explained in even the most serene environment with all the facts place on the table. But their lack of acceptance does not change the illegality of the war. An objective view would certainly say that a war which killed 3.5 million people, which was not in any way defensive (in addition to other massive societal damage which is difficult to measure) is far more of a terrorist action. In fact it was infinitely more of a terrorist action than the Weather Underground’s activities. Kissinger, Nixon, Kennedy Johnson and the 1000s of Americans, both military and civilian, responsible for the hell on earth that was brought down upon the people of SouthEast Asia, and that continues to deeply hamper their development are the terrorists par excellance. Bill Ayers can’t be uttered in the same breath as them.
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws125.htm
Discrimination is a big feature of social life and social discourse. While discrimination conjures images of the civil rights movement and of race riots, discrimination is common in and the norm in all of human activity. For instance, if you help an elderly person to lift something, without being prompted, you have just discriminated for them on the basis of their age. The selection of a mate is nothing but the discrimination against many other possible suitors and the discrimination for your one true love. Discrimination is a curious concept in terms of when people tend to bring up the topic. While nearly ever person can all point out to times when they have personally been discriminated against, its much harder for people to point out when we discriminated against others. In fact there is little interest in discussing this side of the equation at all. Furthermore many groups that rail against discrimination and against the larger homogeneous society frequently discriminate in equal measure within their group and against the larger group as well. Thus the term discrimination actually means is..
“what others have done to me or to my group,”
…and it is more generally a plea for extra benefit based on an extremely hazy notion of fairness. Fairness being whatever improve’s the condition of the person pointing out the discrimination.
Meritocracies
Selecting for more talented people is called a a merit system and for those societies who practice it, it is called a meritocracy. People are in general in favor of a meritocracy, at least when asked their views. However, they generally work against meritocracies by attempting to use their personal connections to enhance their job prospects…this being the opposite of a meritocracy also known as a the “old boys network” and when preference is given for family members it is referred to as nepotism. How much individuals give out benefits based upon meritocracy and how much by personal connection often has to do with how competitive their own personal situation is. If they control a monopoly then there is a tendency to hire family members, if they work in a more competitive situation, then they will tend towards hiring based upon merit.
Limited Benefits
The point we want to bring up, which is very rarely brought up with regards to discrimination, is that there are a limited number of high paying jobs and a limited number of resources in general. Some type of discrimination will be used and will always be used in order to limit the access to “life’s blessings.” Improvements in the lack of discrimination for certain groups of people means fewer benefits for those that were previously the beneficiaries of discrimination. Even under the “expanding pie” fallacy, that is often employed by those that propose that there are no economic or other limitations to a society, there is is still the limit imposed by relative good. In well off societies the well off compete for benefits such as status, living location and life partners, therefore even if the pie continually expands (which it does not of course, and the environmental disaster that is happening in slow motion around us is showing the limitations of growth) there will always be a relative competition for the good things. The better and more valued something is, the less there is to go around.
How Politically Incorrect
No doubt this post will bring up a number of disagreements and form cognitive dissonance with many readers. Its extremely important to mirror the illogical way that society defines discrimination and to think of discrimination in terms of how it is often explained in US society. The author will no doubt be accused of being indifferent to the past discrimination of this group or that group. This is an expected response from those that have immediate emotional reactions to arguments. Actually this post is about the concept of discrimination and how it used to ask for more benefits, but never used to provide more benefits. If one wants to use the argument of discrimination in an unbiased way than one will spend as much time admitting one’s own discrimination against others and offering full benefits to everyone who asks, as they spend using the argument of discrimination in order to get more for oneself.
Most anyone reading this post is familiar with the debate over alternative fuels. The debate includes the usual suspects:
- Hydro-electric
- Solar
- Hydrogen
- Nuclear
- Biofuels
The concept presented is that each power alternative is a viable option. We recently learned that most of these alternatives are not real alternatives. For instance, hydro-electric can only be a very minor contributor to overall power needs, further most of the rivers that could have been damned have been damed, to great environmental damage. Hydrogen is not a real alternative because using hydrogen breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is there is not much fuel (liquid hydrogen) and it takes more energy to break the bonds of hydrogen than can be recouped by combining the hydrogen with oxygen. Nuclear, is highly problematic and will also never be able to produce enough to be a major energy source. There would need to be 10,000 nuclear plants to power the US and you would eventually run out of the necessary Uranium 235. Biofuels provide low energy output considering the inputs of land, energy and conversion of biomass into biofuel. Again, it can never meet a significant source of the national energy needs.
The Solar Solution
Finally Solar, is far and away the most sustainable and best overall solution. For the US it is perfect, it has huge tracks of desert in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas which are very little used. It is estimated that a 100 x 100 square mile solar array would provide all the energy needs for the US. A landmass the size 1/2 of California would provide the energy need for the world. However while these facts are undisputed, solar is presented as just one of a number of equally possible alternatives. Our question here are
- Why is a clearly superior solution is considered equally among other alternatives that are not real?
- Why does solar energy get far less research budget than the ludicrous hydrogen research budget?
Do Companies With Current Investment Want an Alternative?
We consider it most likely that the present approach is design by the current energy power structure in order to confuse the issue. As long was we try to develop an energy future by co-opting and placating the current energy monopolists, its going to be a problem getting anywhere. The last thing the oil companies want is a legitimate alternative to arise so they will fight it tooth and nail. Most energy company innovation seems to go into more and more crafty ways to delude the public. See our post on Chevron:
http://onhumannature.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/is-chevron-an-environmental-company
References
Here is the DVD where the contention regarding the 100 mile x 100 mile solar grid power the US is made. As I said, I will stand on my head if you both watch this and don’t come away convinced solar is the answer and we should begin a massive government investment project into this.
http://www.amazon.com/Crude-Awakening-Oil-Crash/dp/B000PY52IG
BTW, netflix has this, which is where I rented it.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/solar-company-s.html
Also, this 100 square mile solar panel farm concept is supported by the Dept of Energy website:
Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.
PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.
A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the “brownfields”—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities—could supply 90% of America’s current electricity.
These hypothetical cases emphasize that PV is not “area-impaired” in delivering electricity. The critical point is that PV does not have to compete with baseload power. Its strength is in providing electricity when and where energy is most limited and most expensive. It does not simply replace some fraction of generation. Rather, it displaces the right portion of the load, shaving peak demand during periods when energy is most constrained and expensive.
In the long run, the U.S. PV Industry Roadmap does expect PV to provide a “significant fraction of U.S. electricity needs.” This adds up to at least 15% of new added electricity capacity in 2020, and then 10 years later, at least 10% of the nation’s total electricity (PDF 674 KB). Download Adobe Reader
Powered by ScribeFire.
This is an interesting article on the tactics used by military recruiters. However, what I found more interesting was the history that is taught in the recruiting material. It is false and could not be
published as scholarship or be considered serious history. Is the military habitually misrepresenting US military history to both its recruits and to its active duty soldiers? This would explain why our
soldiers tend to restate very black and white and oversimplified America first opinions. It brings up the question of how many even understand the history of the country they believe they are representing.
http://codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=3911#nochild1
______________________________________________________
The textbooks are full of reactionary militaristic, propaganda
JROTC is a Propaganda Tool that distorts U.S. History to a captive audience of 500,000 American school children yearly. “What did you learn in school today?” “I learned that might makes right and the U.S. is never wrong.”
See the Army’s JROTC textbook to read this outrageous distortion of truth
(allow 30 seconds to download)
Examine the following brief survey of historical inaccuracies:
The words in quotes are taken from the standard Army JROTC text used in classrooms across the country.
Most high school history texts in use today discuss U.S. imperialism when discussing the Spanish American War of 1898, not the JROTC text:
“America went to war on the side of Cuba to help that country gain its freedom from Spain…. According to the terms of the peace treaty, signed in December 1898, Spain gave Guam,
the Philippines, and Puerto Rico to the United States and agreed to give up its claim to Cuba. Cuba became a free nation in 1902… The Spanish – American War helped to dim the sour feelings between the North and South as all Americans united together to fight for one cause. The war also proved to the rest of the world that the United States was once again a truly united and powerful nation.”
World War I: The JROTC text fails to mention that the Lusitania was heavily armed or that the US regularly used passenger ships to sell ammunition to the British:
“Then, in May 1915, a German U-boat (submarine) sank the British liner Lusitania resulting in the loss of 1,198 lives, including 128 Americans. The sinking of the Lusitania outraged the American public, and it lead the U.S. government to officially protest the German action. However, German submarines
continued to sink ships with American cargo.”
JROTC’s treatment of the Korean War is completely distorted. Korea’s first President, U.S. – intalled Syngman Rhee, was a ruthless dictator. He is associated with the Daejun and Suwon Massacres that claimed 80,000 lives. Rhee is also implicated in the assassinations of countless political rivals. The Koreans despised him and he was chased out in 1960. Also, he U.S. never “withdrew from South Korea.” We’re still there!
“When the Soviet Union evacuated North Korea in 1948, they left behind a Communist puppet government that did not allow free elections to unify Korea. In 1949, the Americans withdrew from South Korea and left a democratic government led by Syngman Rhee
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated by the Johnson administration to provide a pretext for war, not dissimilar from President Bush’s lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq:
“The event that marked the turning point in the American policy in Vietnam was the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964. Two U.S. destroyers were conducting routine intelligence-gathering patrols in international waters when North Vietnamese patrol boats attacked them.”
The U.S. murdered thousands while invading the Dominican Republic four times in the 20th century to protect American corporate interests:
“When a revolt broke out in the Dominican Republic, its government requested U.S. assistance. Fearing that pro-Communist rebels supplied by Castro might overthrow the Dominican government, President Johnson sent in the Marines and the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. The Americans remained in the Dominican Republic for a year, acting as a peace-keeping force until the political situation settled down.”
Obtain a copy of JROTC textbooks in use in your schools and tell school administrators you object to this reactionary, military propaganda
Powered by ScribeFire.
The Importance of How He Was Caught
What has largely been lost in the Spitzer cased is how he was caught. This is because how he was caught is actually much more important than what he was caught doing. What is known in the case against Elliot Spitzer is that a number of wire transfers into and out of his accounts tipped off the IRS. This led to an FBI investigation which led to a wiretap on Elliot Spitzer’s phones and to finding communications with a prostitution ring. Importantly, Spitzer was caught due to changes to the money transfer limits set by the Patriot Act. What has been found is that in over 90% of the cases, the Patriot Act has been used simply to ease the investigation of domestic crime.
The Patriot Act’s Real Outcome
In practice, the Patriot Act is actually a monitoring tool used against US citizens and should be called the “Domestic Surveillance Act”…or maybe the “KGB Appreciation Act.” It is only incidentally used in policing or monitoring international terrorism. Secondly, while an argument has been proposed that the FBI was brought in to investigate whether Spitzer was being blackmailed (probably a paper tiger argument to cover the obvious inconsistency of the investigation method), once it became apparent that the money went to a prostitution ring, why did the FBI continue to follow the trail? The FBI does not police prostitution unless it is a human trafficking case or if the prostitution is used to buy political favors, not the prostitution Spitzer was involved in. You can test this yourself by calling the FBI and reporting that there are prostitutes walking around your neighborhood. We would be surprised if the FBI sends out agents to investigate. Furthermore, if a member of the general public were caught sending wire transfers to a house of prostitution, its very unlikely that the FBI would spend resources following it up. “Not our jurisdiction” is one of the favorite lines of law enforcement. Therefore, when a law enforcement body follows up a crime that is outside its jurisdiction, the question that needs to be raised is “why?” When the target in question is a political figure and one who is on the opposite side of the corruption fence with the current administration the answer becomes a very likely “because it was politically motivated.”
Strange Investigation
Regardless of whether one is pro or anti-Spitzer, the entire investigation seems very strange. Here we have the FBI tipped off by Patriot Act monitoring rules, following an evidence trail that leads them to an area of illegality which is not within their jurisdiction. If the FBI is serious about not using money laundering and terrorist laws against common domestic crime (as they have repeatedly stated), they need to drop cases which upon review mistakenly trigger the monitoring tripwire. If they refuse to do this, they are merely using boogeymen to create a comprehensive domestic spying program.
Who Does the FBI Serve?
The FBI benefits greatly from Hollywood movies and American mythology where FBI agents are cast as super-cops with vast resources and high competence, uniformly enforcing the law to the best of their abilities. The truth is quite different. The historical record shows the following.
- Like all federal police organizations, they serve at the pleasure of the current executive leadership.
- They also have a cozy relationship with corporations; the ex Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh is now an executive with Citibank. The FBI does not pursue cases without significant advisement from the DOJ and without consideration for the political implications of its actions. Because they have very broad mandate and can choose which areas of the mandate (or areas of illegality) to place their investigative resources.
- Like other federal police forces, their central, though unstated role is to protect federal power, however, who and what they prosecute greatly depends upon which type of administration is holding their reins at the time.
- The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which was as recently as several months prior to the Spitzer case was headed by Alberto Gonzalez, who was resigned under pressure for being involved in “politicizing” the DOJ by firing DAs who were not properly aggressive in prosecuting democrats. Therefore the political motivation of the DOJ is not matter of conjecture, but a proven fact.
The DOJ at this time in particular was extremely politicized, and the larger historical analysis of the FBI puts their arrest of any political figure into serious doubt as to legitemacy.
Better Understanding the FBI’s History and Abuse of Power
The FBI performs domestic surveillance and always has. It gathered information on Marilyn Monroe, in order to have dirt on JFK most likely in order to provide J Edgar Hoover with job security. (JFK did not like J Edgar Hoover, but new he could not have him removed because of Hoover’s surveillance operations). Hoover maintained meticulous records on political opponents, which is the main reason he served as Director of the FBI for 48 years. No president could ever afford to have him removed, as none of them new what Hoover had on them. Illegality has historically been only one of the motivations for surveillance. Martin Luther King did nothing illegal, yet he (and he friends and associates) were monitored relentlessly by the FBI for decades because of his political views. And that is just the lighter stuff.
- It is more likely than not that the FBI had hands in the assissination of both Martin Luther King and Malcom X. T
- The infiltration of peace groups and environmental groups in order to get them to become more radical to promote riots,
- The dressing in civilian clothes during the Bush swearing in ceremony and illegally spraying pepper spray into protesters faces.
So the list is quite long, but we hope this provides a sampling that the FBI is not an overly principled bunch, and enjoys using both illegal and violent means when it helps meet organizational objectives.
The Naive View of the FBI
The idea that the FBI simply objectively follows evidence chains is naive and inconsistent with their history. Despite their statements to the contrary, they have not changed much since the 1960s, and abuses of power continually resurface ever few years. One of the primary requirements of an FBI director is that
- They be strongly politically affiliated with the current presidential administration (so they can by loyal enough not to investigate friends of the current president or the president himself)
- They look convincing under congressional investigation saying things like “the FBI has reformed itself and we have changed course and don’t do those things anymore”
In a three year period of time the FBI issued 150,000 National Security Letters (a blatant effort to circumvent the FAISA court to get real warrants) All this after we were told it is a “new day” at the FBI. All that bad stuff regarding surveilling vicious criminals and terrorists/communists like John Lennon, Noam Chomsky and Maryln Monroe is in the past. Don’t worry be happy.
Who are Spitzer’s Enemies?
When Elliot Spitzer’s resignation at was announced at Wall Street cheers erupted on the trading floor. Spitzer is despised by the financial community for prosecuting corruption in their industry. He concentrated on white collar crime, security fraud, internet fraud and environmental protection. (True he prosectuted prostitution, but this is a very small part of his record.) These are areas that are highly under regulated and under-prosecuted when compared to street crime. This gets us to motive and why the FBI took such an interest in a minor prostitution crime..
“Spitzer was unpopular with concentrated power because he prevented them from engaging in the types of illegal activity that have become considered the birthright of the powerful in this country.”
Shot Across the Bow
Corrupt companies were the first that celebrate Spitzer’s resignation. In fact no one is happier about Spitzer’s decline than unethical concentrated power. All types of pious indignations can be read from the Wall Street Journal’s comment website. This is where the powerful and the financially corrupt offer their opinions. Is this indignation real? Wall Street also happens to be one of greatest consumers of high end prostitutes and strippers. Meanwhile 100s of billions of dollars of fraud go prosecuted in financial industry to say nothing of the “fraud free zone” which is called Iraq. If Spitzer’s investigation was politically motivated and the FBI followed an evidence trail outside of its jurisdiction, if resources were made available to the investigation that normally would not have been, what chilling effect will this have on other aggressive District Attorneys who seek to bring cases against corrupt firms? All of these issues are swept under the rug with the puritanical conservatives focusing on Spitzer’s sex life. The post below is relatively standard of the 3rd grade mentality of our conservative media.
http://www.stockpatrol.com/article/key/governorhasnoclothes
In their eyes, sexual indiscretion eliminates all good work that preceded it.
Will the FBI use the Patriot Act and take a particular interest in their bank accounts? This is a question you can expect other DAs to be thinking right now.
Is Method Important?
In doing research for this post, it was interesting how little questioning is happening on the internet regarding the method by which which Spitzer was tracked and caught. For those in favor of the way in which Spitzer was tracked and targeted for investigation, consider that increasing amounts of discretion are being placed in law enforcement’s hands. As we just found, a monitoring policy that is directed at one thing (money laundering and terrorism) can end up being used in a different way (possibly politically motivated sting operations against former New York district attorneys who have made many enemies of companies like Bears Stearns and Lehman Bros.) At the time Spitzer was critized for being overzealous in his prosecutions. Now, in October 2008 with the financial disaster all around us how legitemate does this view appear? If there were more Spitzers, would we be in this mess? What hurts society more, Spritzer sleeping with prostitutes or what Bears Stearns and Lehman Bros did to people’s retirement?
As the monitoring system becomes more all encompassing the ability to prosecute some people while leaving others alone (depending upon which way the wind is blowing) becomes greater. The KGB used to have a old saying:
“Show me the man, and I will give you the crime.”
http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=643
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802282.html
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/12/spitzers_nonprosecution_as_per/
Extreme Propaganda
We have reached a very cynical state. PR firms now not just partially lie, but completely lie about what a company does. From watching Chevron ads on television (or dropping by its website) it would appear as if they are an alternative energy company. They speak about a “clean future.” Exxon’s ads have so much wildlife in them it appears as if they administer zoos.
Co-Opting Website
This site below is designed to co-op the naive into thinking Chevron is concerned with the environment and with clean fuels. Goebbels would be proud.
Chevron’s Real Record
Chevron is a truly putrid company with horrid ethics run by people who apparently really really like money.
- They have been extracting and exploiting the Nigerian oil fields for decades and are pushing the region towards a civil war.
- Secondly they, along with every other major oil company, has fought tooth and nail against environmental regulation and spill oil in different marine habitats with little concern for ecosystems or wildlife.
However, the produce these propaganda videos that would make a Soviet Commissar blush. They seem to love to discuss their concern for the environment and their focus on alternative fuels – at least in the videos. They probably give these away to schools as “educational curricula.”
What Does Chevron Really Do?
Does Chevron manage an environmental co-op? Do they manage wildlife sanctuaries? No. Chevron makes its money the old fashioned way, by pulling oil out of the ground and then refining it, and then carrying it to taxpayer subsidized gas stations which are attended by poorly paid workers and stocked with piles of high margin junk food. They squeeze the profits out of the station owners who can then not keep the air or water pumps working and can barely keep clean bathrooms. That is the part that we can see. However, what is unseen is far worse. They oppose environmental regulation and have lobbied for energy research dollars to use their present energy infrastructure to produce hydrogen — a scientifically illiterate misdirection of research dollars which is a dead end. Its very simple and if you read it first here, better now than never. Hydrogen will never ever ever develop into an alternative fuel option. How can we be sure? It violates the laws of physics. Generally its best to go with the laws of physics. Not only is Chevron creating a dirty and corrupt present, they want a dirty and corrupt future as well.
Does the Lying Ever Stop at Chevron?
No need to push a line of lies about a clean future and pretending they are Greenpeace, there are many things Chevron could do right now to just act like a moral corporation. Of course they will do none of this.
But they will continued to run ads.
Moronic and Misleading Chevron Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jMsoUnXz4Y
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/
See their website above, and now compare against the charges against them
Why So Many Clones?
When interacting with people its hard to come away with the popular conception….that people are actually coming up with original ideas or thinking for themselves. We are several decades into the implementation of the concept of a broad based educational system where large numbers of people receive bachelor degrees. However, independent thinking is not showing its face very readily. Large swaths of the population seem more interested in buying things than leaning anything and the amount of money one has is considered much more important than what one knows. Furthermore the situation at least in the US is getting worse.
Ant Societies
This brings up the topic of ant societies. In ant societies, as with human societies there is a high degree of coordination and specialization. Unlike apes, ants and termites are able to implement great construction projects (considering their size). This requires a total subordination of the self. For instance there are ants of the Honey Pot species that store their food in ants. They distend their abdomens and hang from the ant chamber walls. Obviously a strong degree of conformity is required from these ants.
You don’t want this ant taking an independent path
Interdependent Societies
Human societies are highly interdependent and require conformity and the following of directions. In ant communities the communication mechanism is airborne hormones or pheromones. While hormones are used for sexual courtship (i.e. perfume), while humans rely on verbal and written communication to direct and coordinate activities. The concept of a meme was developed by Richard Dawkins and Susan Blackmore and is essentially an “idea.” These ideas are used to regiment people’s minds “as an army regiments their bodies.” This is so the group can drive towards specific goals.
Who’s goals are being driven towards is an important consideration?
We think it is the goals of those with financial resources in the human societies and their goals are to maximize economic output and maximize their take of that economic output.
Benefits of High Conformity Societies
There are certainly benefits to high conformity and unquestioning societies.
- The Japanese, well known for their high levels of social regimentation, were able to push precision manufacturing to an entirely new level.
- The Mormons provided highly organized assistance to Katrina flood victims. This would not have happened if every Mormon doing the work questioned the objectives of the effort.
However, the advantages of high conformity societies only pay off if the goals are reasonable and sustainable ones. The inability to stop government supported income redistribution to the top 1% and the inability to place sufficient pressure on corporations which pollute the environment, or which lead to the US having 6000 intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles are examples of how conformity can fail.
Why Question?
Therefore, its unnecessary to question why people are clones, why they have so many unexamined assumptions and why they can’t “think” outside of their vocational area. They have not been trained or asked to think and any unusual or non-conformist thoughts are negatively reinforced. It is not surprising that so few can fight programming which starts at a very young age and moves all the way through university. In education simply becomes a way of providing vocational training and indoctrinization, the old idea of an educated populace will not get us to a situtation where the population has independence in thought.
The nation remembers the Waco incident, where a cult lead by David Koresh, repelling an ATF team which had a illegal weapons warrant to seach their compound. This resulted in at first a gunfight, and then a standoff which went on for weeks. In the end the compound was burned to the ground. However, the origin of the fire was never explained. The FBI maintains (the FBI took over from the ATF which began the situation with their raid) that Branch Dravidians were a suicide cult, and that they started the fire, or at least a few of them started the fire that engulfed them.
The Evidence
There are several problems with this official FBI proposal. The first is the canisters the FBI threw into the compound were incendiaries. Secondly, the FBI lied about this fact. The FBI initially denied this claim, but years later were forced to admit it was true. Second, the compound had been filled for several hours by flammable tear gas and holes had been ripped into the compound (both of these things was done through the use of modified tanks). This increased the speed with which any fire would spread. Third, Waco was not the first FBI standoff that lead to a conflagration. Robert Mathews died in a similar standoff on Whidbey Island when incendiary tear gas canisters used by the FBI, burned down the cabin he was engaged in a stand-off with the FBI. The reasons for this extreme measure was not based upon any threat that Robert Mathews could have possessed vs. the FBI agents. (Various sources state numbers of law enforcement agents at Whidbey Island to be between 60 and 500) – Wikipedia
Zero Credibility
The FBI lied bout a number of things in Waco. They were repeatedly caught in these lies and then changed them or created new lies. Here is a brief list of their lies.
- They said that the Branch Davidians shot themselves to death, even the ones that were found with 9 bullet holes. However, infrared cameras filming from helicopters show agents shooting bursts into the compound while it was burning to the ground.
- The physical evidence (what was left of it) went missing in the FBI lab. The FBI was able to even “misplace” the doors where the initial assault occurred. The FBI maintained that the Branch Davidians shot at them through the doors, not the other way around. However, after taking this and other items into custody the FBI conveniently lost all the evidence.
The Cover Up
During the congressional investigation the Democrats and Republicans eventually closed ranks, neither of them wanting the truth about Waco to get out as it would undermine the confidence in the FBI, the ATF and law enforcement generally. Charles Schumer and Joseph Biden were critical in the coverup during the congressinal investigation. During the testimony the FBI agents made a number of nonsensical statements that “they stood between the bad guys and the rest of civilization.” They were caught in multiple inconsistencies during the hearings. The final declaration by Joseph Biden that the FBI acted appropriately is surreal.
The Most Likely Explanation
The most likely explanation is the one most difficult to accept. The FBI deliberately set fire to the compound and restricted the access of fire trucks until there was nothing left of it. Its important to consider how the FBI agents acted during the siege. Many of them appeared to be living out some type of action movie fantasy. Driving around in tanks, giving the Branch Davidians the finger and taunting them during the siege. When Koresh’s mother visited during the stand off agents were reported to have said
“say your goodbyes because he is not coming out alive.”
The FBI can add the Waco incident to the murder of Fred Hampton and the intimidation of Martin Luther King and John Lennon, their undermining of the civil rights movement. Its quite a resume of corruption and abuse of power.
Powered by ScribeFire.
