Russell Brand: Man of the People

I used to think that Russell Brand was a complete twonk. Another icon of establishment decadence swaggering across the screen at our expense with a typical celebrity class ignorance and indifference to the injustices lavished upon the majority for the power, prestige and riches of the sociopathic minority we call the elite, the establishment, the ruling class. Whether that sentiment was justified at the time I'm unsure, but it is one I no longer hold. I became aware that Russell had sympathy for us, the 'unwashed masses', when I came across an article he produced for The Guardian in which he scorned the extreme hypocrisy of the establishment in their treatment of rioters whilst continuing to lay a carpet of rose petals for our war criminals, terrorists and ultra-thieves we call investment bankers and traders [1]. However I nearly fell off my sofa the other evening when I saw him being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight [2]. Russell was on fire! He was fierce, filled with the pain of the people and the planet, a freight train of disgust plowing into Paxman's agenda riddled questions, carriage after carriage of articulate decimation of the political paradigm that prevails ubiquitously in the establishment media. I'm surprised that the interview was even aired. For that Mr. Paxman and Co. do deserve some credit, but it is Mr. Brand who should be appreciated here, not merely for his spirited lambasting of the vogons that rule over us and control the the wealth of the nation, but for the circumstantial fact that he can awaken and invigorate a lost generation of disenfranchised and disengaged young people like few others can. I can only hope that other celebrities of Brand's generation hear the groans of the people and pick up the torch, to help ordinary people, particularly the younger generation, fight back, not just for justice and equality but very likely for the survival of the species.

Russell brings to the fight some long over due humour. A kind of humour that us ordinary folks can relate to. It has the incredibly important characteristic of raising awareness of the seriousness of the situation we're in but without sending us into a coma. He is able to stitch back together our attention spans, that have been shattered by the mind and ethics disintegrating triviality and chaotic dross we call the mainstream or establishment media. It should be well noted also that this arrangement is far from undesigned as Chomsky and others prolifically reveal [3][4][5]. The establishment do not want ordinary people participating in politics. They never did. They never will. If ordinary people enter the arena en mass then the political system will no longer be heavily tipped in favour of the rich. Check out Russell's piercing but also funny recent article in the New Statesman [6].

Russell is absolutely right that voting is a waste of time. As I sometimes say "if this is democracy then giving a slave the day off once every few years should be called liberty". Picking between factions of the elite once every few years is not choice. It is not participation. It is very definitely not democracy. It is the scam we are told to believe is democracy, rather like being given the choice between a kick in the teeth or a punch in the mouth. Furthermore there are very good reasons why genuine prominent alternatives do not exist, or at least are not made known to us. They are numerous, but perhaps most significant is the fact that the establishment own and control the mainstream media. Are they likely to allow alternatives and views that challenge their exponentially disproportionate wealth and dominance over us? It's a no brainer. The only participation in politics ordinary people have is in the streets, demonstrating, protesting, striking, refusing to comply with the ideologies forced upon us. But we do have power. Enormous power. Our power lies in our numbers. The elite are terrified of us, which is why they go to such great lengths to divide us, disengage us and make us apathetic and hopeless. But hope is here, it's growing, and you need a piece of it. Growing and evolving movements around the world are linking up, sympathising, educating, sharing and galvanising. Occupy, the 99%, Anonymous, the Arab Spring, human rights groups, animal rights groups, unions, celebrities, academics, political dissidents, whistleblowers ad nauseam are all fighting back, not just for themselves, but also for each other and for you. You just need to pay attention. Visit their websites and their YouTube videos. Join the Facebook pages and Twitter discussions. Feel the power of the people. Connect with others who are as outraged as you. Join a protest and make new friends, real friends with a passion for humanity, for the planet, for our future, for you. You'll thank me I promise.

Russell is a good man doing a darned good thing, and good people deserve our appreciation and reciprocation. The only thing I can do to reciprocate here is to make you aware that it is very typical of the establishment to go after outspoken public figures and try to bring them down before their message really reaches the masses. Don't be surprised if Russell Brand becomes 'embroiled in scandal' of some sort in the not too distant future. He is certainly at best sacrificing career opportunities for our benefit. Stand by him as he stands by you!

As always please let me know what you think.

References

[1] Big Brother isn't watching you, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron
[2] Newsnight: Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand, 23/10.2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0R9wCZz-o
[3] Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
[4] Orwell Rolls In His grave (including an extended interview with media expert Professor Robert McChesney, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80
[5] Psywar, the battle for your mind, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX0vujix-o
[6] New Statesman article, Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

Representative Democracy: An oxymoron?

I've often given thought to the idea of the representation of interests but have never 'put pen to paper', so I thought I might share with you where I have gotten to and see what you think about the matter.

Who is the best arbiter of your best interests? As a babies we lack any capacity to reason and therefore it is down to our parents to do their best to ensure our survival and our futures. Our genes predetermine this parental behaviour, which is what is meant by maternal or paternal instincts. As our capacity to reason develops we begin our struggle for independence. Often an unhappy time for both child and parents as their instinct to best serve our interests starts to conflict with our own developing sense of self interest. At some point we take control of our much our own interests, which is typically upon leaving the nest. Outside of this normative pattern the capacity of others to best serve our interests diminishes with diminishing kinship. That is to say; the less connected we are as family or friends the more we are likely to be serving our own interests rather than each others'.

How then is a representative democracy possible? Is it merely an oxymoron? Can a politician really have your interests at heart? Personally I don't think so. They are by nature representing their own interests, even if they earnestly believe they are trying to serve ours. Even if we manage to communicate to them our needs and desires we run into numerous problems.

• The representative is going to have to balance our needs and desires against the needs of desires of others they are representing.
• They have their own political ideologies, needs and desires that may and in my opinion almost without exception does conflicts with our interests.
• Party affiliations often demand that representatives follow the party line even if the representative is not in favour of the party line.
• The fact that one person is supposedly representing the interests of many makes them a target of powerful third party interests who are seeking to ensure that your interests are not represented. This can take the form of bribery, propaganda and even threats.

It is also important to note that the rich and powerful conspire to ensure that democracy is so configured. An examination of the notes of James Madison, perhaps the leading framer of the US constitution, provides us with an important insight into the thinking of the elite. The US founding fathers certain had England as a working model around which to construct their own system, and notes from their secret meetings show just that:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." [1]

Particular attention should be paid to the notion of protecting the interests of the minority of the opulent against the majority. Here James Madison is explicitly stating that the interests of the rich and powerful must trump those of the masses, fearful that democracy would lead to equality. Despite these horrific statements we should bare in mind that the founders were actually attempting to construct a comparatively more fair system for all than that of England at the time. They were however in fact elite, wealthy land owners and slave owners, and of course serving their own interests. This is the US 'representative democracy' in construction, but what they were in fact constructing was a tyranny over the masses with democracy for the rich. That system persists to this day, with our own British system now mimicking it almost entirely.

These points certainly demonstrate how wealthy people impose a class system upon us in which the further down the social order we are, the less participation in democracy we are afforded, for the explicit purpose of serving their interests, even if they believe they are serving ours.

For me, I don't think that there is any such thing as a representative democracy, because representatives do not and cannot represent us. I do think the term is at best an oxymoron if not an outright term of propaganda.

What do you think?

References
[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

"Profits and tax cuts are not dirty words" according to David Cameron

This is the headline of a lead article from The Guardian today. It is in fact interesting to see such statements make it into headlines, as it suggests that there is a debate afoot as to the reality of the statement. If profits and tax cuts are not dirty words, why say anything? The very fact that the PM felt the need to say it is evidence of a fight back against public opinion by the ruling class. So I'd like to explore these words here for your consideration.

Let's be clear, when David Cameron states that 'tax cuts' are not dirty words in an act of defence against an opposing public position, we know he is not talking about tax cuts across the board but merely tax cuts for the rich. One of the Cameron government's first taxation acts was to cut the 50p rate on inheritance tax, which is a tax that only affects the rich. Why tax cuts for the rich? It's not as though they are facing any financial hardship is it? It is however the corporations of the rich that are lobbying our ministers and MPs on a daily basis, with campaign donations and offers of post-parliament 'consultancy' roles for MPs carefully tucked up their sleeves.

We should all take time to consider the meaning of the word profit. What is profit? What does it mean to profit? If I grow fruit on my land and exchange some for vegetables grown by my neighbour there is no profit. It is a mutually beneficial exchange for the purposes of our survival. It gets a little more complicated when we venture into the world of money, but the principle remains; in a fair and equitable exchange of goods or services there is no profit. Profit only arises when one party is exploiting one or more other parties, and on this 'principle' the ruling class has worked very hard to convince us all that it is fair and good, Cameron's own words being an explicit example. So who are the exploiters and the exploited? Well clearly ordinary folk are exploited by the rich, otherwise they wouldn't be rich! This isn't to say that the rich do no work. In fact they work very hard, exploiting us, because it is so profitable, but then should we really be calling this work? A con artist might have to go door to door for weeks before finding a suitably gullible enough victim with sufficient money to make his efforts worthwhile, but we don't call it 'work', nor should we of the activities of the rich. Furthermore the rewards to the rich are astonishingly disproportionate to their efforts.

The status quo is maintained of course by the fact that the wealth of rich gives them power, doorways into the process of government, and furthermore their domination of the media allows them to persuade the unsuspecting masses in their favour whilst keeping the truth as far from us as possible. If only folks had the time to look into the public record properly. The parliamentary record. The declassified record. Interestingly if we were all working to the principles of making a living rather than a profit, especially the rich, then there would be far greater financial equality. Perhaps more to the point though is that if we did away with the profit system and ditched all of the pointless junk produced in its name, we might all only have to work a 2 or 3 day week. Then there would be time on our hands to look into what the ruling class actually do. Catch 22. That's how they keep us intellectually and financially chained.

Thankfully ordinary folk exist in vastly greater numbers than their ruling classes, such that the mere act of talking about these things and propagating these ideas amongst ourselves leads to powerful people's movements that force the rich to act in our favour lest they risk revolution. Monsieur Guillotine's famous invention, used prolifically for shortening members of the French ruling class in the French revolution, really does play on their minds when we take to the streets.

National Service legislation for 18-25 year olds in progress

 A legislative bill to force national service on 18 to 25 year olds is currently making its way along the legislative conveyor belt in UK Parliament. The bill, titled 'National Service Bill 2013-14'[1], making it an offence to have reached the age of 26 without having performed national service, currently at the committee stage, will force young people to serve the armed forces or one of a number of other activities. Whether these alternate activities could be chosen from by young people in service is not defined suggesting that young people might be able to specify a preference but with government ultimately deciding the nature of their service for them. This leaves open the possibility of unofficial allocation of service by social class, school history or other capricious allocations.

The bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (Kettering), contains provisions for the following service content:

• forced re-education for young people who have not attained qualification in mathematics or English reading/writing
• a forced physical fitness regime, personal appearance and discipline
• life skills (cooking and so forth) and time keeping

This is not the complete list. The provisions also include what are likely to be regarded as socially beneficial elements.

The duration of service proposed is for one year for which young people on the program will be paid at the national minimum wage rate. Young people with severe physical or mental disabilities will be exempt from the program.

No official rationale for the bill is presented but it is not hard to see what it is trying to achieve. Governments have regularly created schemes for reducing unemployment figures without creating new employment. However it has been a long time since national service was in force suggesting that other motives may also be at work. The economic situation has certainly not improved for the majority of people in the country, with young people being worst affected, the government's unwillingness to tackle the big banks on activities that led to the 2008 crash, the shenanigans that have left the majority with increased work loads and pressure for the same pay, the economy is set to continue having problems and perhaps crash again. The bankers and corporate CEOs will not have missed the uprisings in Greece, Spain and elsewhere, and will be keen to see rebellion against their policies contained or stamped out. A national service program would indeed reduce the number of people with time on their hands who might be prepared to protest whilst simultaneously creating extra forces for controlling outrage and dissent by those worst hit.

If you have concerns about this bill then please express your concerns to your MP, whose contact details and email address can be found at the 'find your MP' page on the Parliament website. Additionally you may wish to share this article with friends and family in order to spread awareness since the establishment media are not so far covering this bill.

 

References

[1] National Service Bill 2013-14, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

--------------------------------
Edit (13/09/2013):  I should have noted that this is a private members' bill, and as such has a lower likelihood of becoming law than a bill introduced by a minister.

Syria and the myths of power

Today I encountered two points of view that caught my attention. The first was an article posted in The Guardian by Niall Ferguson criticising left wing views on US intervention in Syria, which immediately had me thinking about propaganda and the establishment's self justifying mythology. By accident I stumbled upon an interesting talk called 'The Myth of Capitalism" by the historian Michael Parenti who from the outset began laying out what I was already thinking about regarding the Ferguson article, which was both a delight, for having my own view supported, and also a bit of a bummer since he was saying more or less what I wanted to say now, leaving me feeling like anything I write here now will be superfluous at best. Nonetheless I am compelled to write and so here I am.

Thankfully Parenti's talk is about capitalism whereas I wanted to talk about the situation in Syria, the 'humanitarian intervention' being pushed for by the West and the reality of Western power. Ferguson's article, I believe, is more or less a reflection of his beliefs on the matter in hand rather than some deceitful propaganda he dreamed up with hope of fooling readership. Ferguson argues for three points in his article, which I feel must be addressed:

"I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence."

That US military might is the "best available means of preventing crimes against humanity" is to me predicated on basis of illusion and delusion. First off we would have to ignore all of the crimes against humanity carried out by the US both directly and indirectly. Western establishment media of course does this almost uniformly, notwithstanding the occasional article in The Guardian buried deep amongst the non-headline articles and thus never actually penetrating the public mind. Furthermore the establishment has always gone to extreme lengths to silence sources, of significance, that expose their criminality. So right now Bradley Manning is languishing in prison for having leaked evidence of US war crimes and the central journalist of this revelation, Julian Assange is being persecuted under the dubious pretext of being a fugitive of justice for rape, the details of which leave few in doubt as to the real agenda in play. Perhaps we should just remind ourselves of what the US did in Iraq that was leaked:

This is just one instance, just in Iraq, and we are 'lucky' to have such explicit video evidence, thanks to the bravery of Bradley Manning. It is difficult to convey how this represents a mere drop in the ocean of crimes of US imperialism, most of which the Western public is kept ignorant of by the Western establishment media, but for the curious amongst you, you may wish to look into US operations in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Cambodia, Cuba and Haiti to name a few. This ignores all of the proxy wars, terrorism and oppression carried out on behalf of the US or with its consent in places like Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, East Timor, Palestine ad nauseam. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and others write and talk extensively about many of these 'ventures', which you can find on YouTube or in print.

The second argument made by Ferguson is that the US is a reluctant actor in the world with respect to its use of military force. This is an extraordinary claim that really has me wondering about Ferguson's honesty on the matter. In what sense might we call the US reluctant to use military force? It might prefer to delegate acts of mass violence to its client states for appearance purposes, but that is really about it. The US doesn't spend as much of the rest of the world combined on it's means of violence for no reason. It's 900 military bases stationed around the world might also be telling us something too. However its list of military engagements, against countries that were certainly not attacking the US, since WWII, must surely be the concrete post in the coffin of the argument for reluctance.

For me, the most interesting argument Ferguson makes in favour of US military engagement is that the world would be more violent without it. This is the template myth upon which all establishment power is instituted and maintained. The point was made beautifully in the film 'V for Vendetta' when Chancellor Sutler bellows to his staff; "I want everyone to remember why they need us". It is certainly common place for the police to believe that without the police the world would descend into perpetual violence, thus justifying their own violence, which is almost without exception discussed under the aegis of 'justice' within the establishment media, thus disguising police violence that is mentioned and completely ignoring implicitly the violence carried out by the police that isn't mentioned. The reality is that the majority of and the most extreme violence in the world is carried out by authorities, not ordinary people. They rely upon the myth that without their violence there would be greater violence. So we have to fear a world that doesn't exist in order to accept the world of violence that does exist. In fact the entire world order is constructed on the basis of violence or at least the threat of their violence. That is what is meant by the term 'force' as in 'police force', 'air force' and so forth. It is their capacity to use violence to achieve what is favourable to them. Really we should be asking ourselves, 'are my neighbours really going to march around here and start threatening me with violence if there is no police force?'. Very few people are going to answer an honest 'yes' to this question. In reality you are more likely to get the most rapid and effective help from your neighbours in the case of being attacked than you are from the police, if only your neighbours are called.upon. The real justification for authoritarian power was articulated eloquently by US founding father James Madison. In discussion of the founding of the United States he wrote:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[1]

 "Protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". That's right, it is all about protecting the rich, and their wealth, from the masses from whom they exploited it, often using violence.

With respect to Syria, the idea that the US has any humanitarian concerns is absurd. Groups that are attacking the Syrian regime are comprised of militant groups largely supported by if not controlled out right by US client regimes, most notably Saudi Arabia. The US as always is seeking hegemonic control in the region, not least for the region's oil resources, and Syria is a pillar of support to Iran, perhaps the most prized of oil producers not under US control.

Is Niall Ferguson a ruthless liar for Western power or merely indoctrinated with the myths of Western power? I think I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

Understanding Governments and The Establishment for Dummies

OK, many folks will be totally turned off by the post title here having already been turned off from politics by the shinanigens of politicians and the apparent complexity of politics. Obviously you havent quite reached that point otherwise you wouldn't be reading this. The good news is that politics is far simpler than most folks realize, though you wouldnt naturally pick that up from the white noise that is the mainstream media. The not so good news is that politics is far more sinister than most folks realise, but don't despair, I have some great remedies for that enraging sense of powerlessness. I'm not going to bog you down with confusing political jargon, rather I intend to cut through the crap and give you the big picture by reminding you about things that you probably already know, but have faded in the glare of the information barrage coming from your TV/Internet/newspapers etc.

The first thing to remember is that you live in a class structured society. The structure of modern society has not changed much since the dawn of human civilization and it is teered or stratified, broadly speaking, as lower, middle and upper. There are variations on these terms which maybe more or less familiar too; the establishment, the 1%, the ruling class, the wealth of the nation. These are all variations of the upper class. Management and political class are variations on the middle class. Working class, proletariate and steerage are variations of the lower class.

The distribution of political power amongst the classes is roughly speaking inversly proportional to the numbers of people in each class, during in 'peace time' at least, and is illustrated:

Class population distribution and order

These figures are taken from an article published on the BBC website for Britain called 'What is working class?'. The accuracy of the figures isn't terribly important for the point of this article. The magnitude of distribution is enough to make the relevant points. Power, wealth and attitudes maybe further stratified and compartmentalised within each class, but that is not terribly important for this article either, we just need the class oriented overview.

The first thing we should notice about the above figure is the order i.e. upper, middle and lower. What do these actually mean. Well, the most common way of viewing this order is in terms of wealth and power, with the upper having the most of both and the lower having the least. However, what I want to bring to your attention is the distribution of attitudes, particularly with regard to how these classes view each other. A typically held view by each class is that of 'we are the good guys'. Empathy of the upper towards the lower is low as is the lower towards the upper, the latter being commonly referred to as 'inverted snobbery'. Interestingly the middle class has a higher degree of empathy for the upper and lower classes than those classes have for each other. The middle class broadly speaking aspire to the wealth and style of the upper class but also sympathise to some extent with the lower class's hardships. Of course you will find plenty of exceptions to the these views within each class. I am speaking here in terms of general attitudes. Another aspect of attitude we might want to think about is the sense of superiority. Self superiority is nowhere near as abundant in the lower class, whereas it is dominant in the upper class.

'Order' is a word that you will come across frequently in politics, as in 'law and order' or as spoken in courts and parliament as a command 'Order!'. What does it mean. Well, look at the illustration and it should become obvious. The term means 'deference' or 'defer' i.e. the expectation that one should defer to their 'superiors'. It's not a term I am fond of, as like most I do not think of myself as being inferior to anyone. Of course we maybe inferior on specific skills and so forth e.g. I'm no carpenter, so a professional carpenter is obviously superior to me in wood working skills, but as a person I am much more egalitarian of thought. That is to say that I believe that all people are equal even if different. This is not a view widely held in the upper class I'm sorry to say.

There are many sources, particularly auto-biographies of national leaders, from which we can find candid revelations of supremacist attitudes amongst the upper class. I have picked one, which I have shamelessly lifted from Noam Chomsky in a talk he gave in Belfast 1993 titled 'Creating a New World Order', that should give some sense of attitudes amongst the ruling class:

The actual reality was expressed a bit more accurately by Winston Churchill, with his customary lucidity, when he was describing the new world order of the day, in 1945, and he wrote as follows; "The government of the world must be entrusted to the satisfied nations, who wish nothing more for themselves than what they have. Not to the hungry nations who only cause trouble. The government of the world must be entrusted to rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations. Our power placed us above the rest and it is our right to rule."

These kinds of utterances are generally kept out of the mainstream media, so for the casual observer it is quite hard today to pick up the degree of supremacist thinking amongst the ruling class, in fact many of the real power wielding ruling class do not appear in the mainstream media whatsoever. For example you might want want to browse the website 'Who Owns Britain' and see how many of the major land owners' names you recognise.

So what causes these social groups to become distinguished in their attitudes? We only need look at the evolution of species of plant or animal to find the answer. Geographically isolated groups of the same species will diverge into different species given time. Likewise, intellectually or geographically isolated groups of people will evolve different cultures over time. Just think about the evolution of Islam versus that of Christianity. Once an administrative group is formed to govern a people, and even though that administrative group is of those people, they immediately have a common interest; governing people. Government will always face resistance from some sections of the population on each issue, and so become desensitised to the concerns of such sub-groups believing that their own actions are for the 'greater good'. Given enough time the administrative group will be concerned with governing only and care nothing for the concerns of the people it governs, which is pretty much what we see today. A class of governors has evolved who serve the interests of governors only, relenting in its course only when discontent amongst the governed starts to frighten them. Even then they will use forceful means to try to stay their course, until of course it becomes untenable. The result is that at least 2 classes will evolve who exist in varying states of opposition to each other, the governors making laws to suit their ideals and the governed breaking those laws to suit their ideals. So now we have upper and lower classes.

So where does the middle class come from? Well, the upper class is a minority, and given that it's largely self-serving policies will benefit it most, it is naturally a minority of the privileged. So, based on the ratio of governors to the governed, many of its policies will be concerned with its own security. At the very least it requires a police force between it and the governed. If the police were to share the same views of the governed then the police force would be of no use to the governors, in fact a capable police force would be a threat to the governors. As a result the police force are given preferential treatment over the lower class, in the way of pay at the very least. Today the treatment of police goes much further, including indoctrination of the police against the lower class. The lower class must be treated with suspicion at all times. These are just 2 of the ways in which the police are set apart from the lower class. There are many others. This is quite probably one of the roots of the middle class, though we can go back to the Romans or further to see other middle class groups such as slave traders and so forth. Each middle class group serving the interests of the upper class whilst benefiting from exploitation of the lower class, or even other members of the middle class.

This stratification of the people has been around for a long time. The earliest civilisation I know of that doesn't appear to have had a middle class is that of the people of Caral in Peru. This was very likely a civilisation transitioning from a flat society to a structured society in which no middle class had yet developed.

There are many more aspects to this topic to be discussed, including the extremes that the ruling class regard as norms, which I shall do in future posts, but in short, countries are ruled by the ruling class for the ruling class, not by the people for the people.

Ordinary Americans are stirring

Now here is a guy with some things he really seems to need to get of his chest. He is a small time radio host, but I'm wondering how many more like him there are Many?

The Young Turks are making similar noises though still talking in terms of power structures rather than freedom. That's 2 that I know of. If there are many, that would be a significant network of grass roots support for a revolution in the US.

Another military dictator for Iraqis?

"Various ideas for replacements have been aired over the years and none so far look convincing. But another Ba'athist or military dictator from the Sunni/Tikriti minority might be found with whom we could do business"[1]

Simon Webb, UK MOD Policy Director 2001-2004 [2]

I wonder how convincing it would have been to Iraqis to have the UK graciously find them another military dictator. Presuming that Simon is not completely stupid then we would have to assume that he knew this would not be what Iraqis wanted and that in fact Simon was merely following longstanding British imperialist doctrine to control other countries by whatever means.

"But there was a more serious and considered answer given by the National Security Council, the highest planning agency. They pointed out that there's a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports status quo regimes which, of course, are brutal and oppressive, and does so in order to secure its own interests in obtaining oil, and then they said, well, it's hard to counter this perception because it's correct." [3]

There is little for me to add as it's all been said before.

---

[1] Letter/Memorandum : "Bush and the War on Terrorism"; 12/04/2002, MOD reference : "D/Policy Dir/6/2/2 (171/02); Obtained from URL : "http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/52573/webb-ps-sofs-bush-war-on-terrorism-2002-04-12.pdf"

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8375439.stm

[3] "The Campaign of Hatred Against Us", Noam Chomsky interview by Four Corners, January 26, 2002, http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020126.htm

---

The Tower of Babel

There is a tale told in the Bible about something called the Tower of Babel. The story goes that men tried to build a tower to reach the place of God, and God brought down the tower and scrambled the languages of men so that they could not collaborate in such a plan again, or so he thought...

A tower is a structure, constructed from substructures and layers. It is hierarchical in construction, and it is this that we should be looking for if we want to unveil 'T2'. Hierachy is everywhere in human society today. Contrary to common belief it is not necessarily a natural formation in human gatherings. Many ancient and even remote modern cultures are virtually structureless. In the Western World, we see towers reaching to the sky all around us but most of the time fail to see that they are merely substructures. What separates us is an idea that gained footing before the Romans; that depriving other sentient beings of life and liberty equals good profit.

The McDonalds lettuce washer reports to the floor manager. The floor mananger reports to the site franchise manager. The site franchise manager reports to the regional franchise manager. The regional franchise manager reports to the franchise general manager. The franchise general manager reports to the board of directors. The board of directors reports to the shareholders. The shareholding corporation market subsidiaries manager reports to the conglomerate management. The conglomerate management reports to the conglomerate board of directors. The conglomerate board of directors reports to the conglomerate shareholders. The conglomerate shareholders give 'donations' to the campaigns of politicians who will best represent them, and maybe arrange for the other politicians interested in their line of business other things to worry about, like where their children are right now, whether will they be embroiled in a sex scandal in the morning, or perhaps whether they will have an unfortunate 'accident' in their car on the way home.

Here we have 9 tiers of commercial hierachy, and a fairly typical one too. Each tier coercing the tier below, usually with the threat of losing their job for more mundane matters..., and ensuring their complicity and compliance in whatever agenda the tier above is operating.

So up there amongst the gods, we have military moguls who do so well out of death by metal and other forms of chemistry, banking moguls who own most of the planet, oil moguls who are doing so well from poisoning us all to death, the Biotech moguls who are doing so well out of experimenting on human beings and engineering the seeds of life to replace us. Shamelessly quoting from the film Contact (though perhaps not a good choice here) "are these the people you want talking to your god for you?".

God, or nature, it seems is poised to reply to these men, and in fact to all of us. Unfortunately the tower, now on the verge of collapse, is going to hurt and kill a lot of people as it crumbles down on top of its populations. The tower has suffered a few minor quakes in recent years, and all indepentent economists are telling us that they were merely preludes to the grand finale.

I'm just wondering though, are you still holding the tower? Are you still passing up more support? Do you really have to keep doing that? Humans did just fine living off the land before they started building towers. Are you living off the land or are you on the tower?

Want to know why no bankers have been prosecuted?

The Guardian has put some rather interesting articles on its home page today highlighting the blatent and overwhelming corruption in our. 'David Cameron's £50,000 price tag finds 70 people willing to pay up' and 'City's influence over Conservatives laid bare by research into donations' are unusually revealing for the Guardian regarding our political process, such that I suspect that it is a 'shot across the bow' to the coalition. Why? I'm not sure right now, but it can't be anything to do with regulation given how bent all of the parties have been with regard to Rupert Murdoch's poisonous empire. So, we'll have to see what we can find out.

Home Office plans to spy on your social network conversations

This is just a short entry for folks to follow up for themeselves. I found the following article burried low down in a small reference below irrelavent faff about rugby on The Guardian website :

Home Office defends plan to monitor social network conversations

As always I would like to remind folks that infact there is something you can do about this. Simply google for social movements and campaigns in opposition to these orwellian policies and sign up (e.g. Avaaz, 28 Degrees, Amnesty International and so forth). Share your links to the sites for specific campaigns on your social networking facility of choice. This stuff works!