Many people are now recognising the power of the 1%, but this awareness is trickling through slowly. The problem is that we have all had lifetimes of indoctrination into a different way of perceiving the problem, and hence why it is much easier for some young people to see the power relationships.
As a retired person I have grown up with the notion of government as power. To be quite honest for most of that time I have ridiculed the politicians but recognised that these opportunists become the public face of the power of the civil service and military. This is a political dynamic that was brought out well in the TV mini-series “A Very British Coup” in which a democratically-elected socialist clashed with civil service and military. Whilst I still found the series relevant, as I previously mentioned it cursorily mentioned the City, a significant part of the British 1%.
Who employs the civil service? The 1%. Who pays for them? The tax-payer. What is the function of the civil service? To maintain a society that exploits the British people on behalf of the 1%. And they have another significant function, they are receptionists. When you walk into company offices you walk up to a reception area, where you are met usually by a pretty woman who directs you to where you want to go. If you are not wanted you are redirected or politely asked to leave. If you make a scene what is the point? It is only a receptionist. If you get beyond the receptionist you have to be in the know, but even then there is the secretary. There are basically echelons of people who keep you from the actual power – I am giving these echelons a generic term “the receptionists”.
At the same time as there are the receptionists there are designated people whose job it is to deal with complaints – complaints managers whatever. And these people have access to security so that if they cannot fob off your complaints security can easily eject you. These roles I include in the generic “receptionists”.
So in the UK the civil service are responsible for daily business on behalf of the 1%, they are “receptionists”, do they make decisions? No, “receptionists”. In the TV series we then have the military. Now they have a dual 1% function. The most obvious is what they were setup for – to protect the 1%. Initially in the UK that protection was for the aristocracy. And at that time they had an inter-related secondary function, to fight wars. Let’s consider the Crusades, here is a documentary that does so. Ostensibly to protect Britain, the Crusades also used the pretext of religion to invade, rape and pillage. Since that time we have used security, democracy, religion as excuses for fighting wars, but in whose interests have those wars been fought in the second half of the 20th and this century. Two-fold interests. The first is obvious – oil industry. But the second almost as obvious – the weapons industry. Do the people gain in either of these interests? No, they were not meant to. The military are there to protect the 1%. Who pays for it? Tithes or the taxpayer originally. Now fiat money. Where does this fiat money come from? Nowhere. Through their revolving door the banks tell the government that they have fiat money to pay for whatever they want the government to pay for. As the civil service the day-to-day government does what their employer wants, and we have the galloping inflation and recessions that cause the austerity policies British people are now suffering.
And who do we blame? Who do we rant and rave at? The receptionists. What for? What can they do? Or we blame the public faces – the politicians or the complaint managers.
We have examined one aspect of security – the military, but there is another internal branch – the police and the law. Let’s start with the law as ostensibly this is what the police are there to protect. So we need to examine the functioning of the law, never examine the theory or ideals because that is not the purpose – that is the disguise, examine the functioning. Once we examine the functioning we see the law acting as a means of maintaining the status quo, and what is that? We have a society run by the 1% profiting from the earnings and labour of the 99%. When the 1% arrive in courts they are protected because the best lawyers can be bought. Parliamentary law does not say we will protect the 1% but through judgements the law does establish precedents which function as that protection. They establish laws for their profiteering such as copyright law and patenting law, when you examine how Monsanto have exploited patent law effectively starting a process of criminalising organic farming – criminalising healthy food, you can see the function of the law in action.
When Occupy wants to exercise their human right to protest, the law protects the 1% and turns these citizens into criminals. In order for the 1% to continue their exploitation they need a stable society, so civil laws are passed – you might consider these as the laws for the 99%. Many of these are common sense laws that would allow civil people to live together such as most criminal law, and through this disguise we accept another instrument of the 1% – the police. These are the security at the office that the complaints manager calls in, it matters not whether the complaint is valid the security ejects you if you continue to threaten the 1%. And of course the security is legitimised when their role is to imprison criminals – criminals that we would all designate as such. But when it comes to fraudsters on Wall Street the police are powerless, of course who employs the police?
But what would happen if all the 99% went to the “receptionists”? There would not be enough receptionists, complaints managers and security to deal with the 99%. So there are two other pillars of the reception area. The first is the media. Now the media makes huge profits out of the 99% through the entertainments industry. But whilst entertaining the people they also make sure that the people are not aware of who has the power and how to access them, in effect they ensure that all activity is carried out in the reception area. Blue Bloods is a cop show that considers the dilemmas of a caring NYPD, and whilst it is good entertainment it never once addressed the issue that the NYPD were criminalising Occupy at the bequest of the 1% (particularly the $4.6 million donation of Morgan Chase).
Now the media deals with the majority of people, but what about those who have the ability to make change? Every generation of society has a lifeblood of change, its youth. If you do not control this youth then their power can overthrow any establishment. Traditionally this youth was controlled through respect for the Elders, but as part of their exploitation the 1% recognised that the Elders were a detriment to their exploitation. Elders knew interminable debt ie a fiat economy was destructive so when, post second world war, the 1% started to increase their exploitation in the West they took advantage of a stagnating post-war culture and introduced a youth culture dominated by fashion. Rather than respect for Elders there developed fawning for celebrity, and those celebrities became tools of 1% corporations promoting fashion and the latest costly technology. This left youth chasing their tails and rejecting the voices of experience.
But that was still not enough because these young people could still effect change. So here is where an integral platform of neo-liberalism (neoliberalism discussed by Chomsky here) was introduced – apathy, the belief that what is wrong could not be changed an important corollary of that – those who are trying to effect change are crazy and misdirected. And if there was still energy left they dissipated through academic divide-and-rule. They rewarded some idealists with positions in academia by buying off the more malleable, and then other idealists promoted their ideals vying for similar positions. Or idealists who told people, follow my ideal this way of change is the best (see this blog for the way such idealism can induce division). Through education they presented a 1%-view of society. For most people this education didn’t matter as they were only to be failures but for some there would be success. They needed to educate senior management who could be bought off with senior positions in their systems – sophisticated complaints managers, others became professor being bought off in academia. Others fought the system as idealists, demanding people follow their framework and creating dissension if this following was not 100%, ensuring that the one thing the 1% feared – consensus amongst the 99% – could not happen. So the media law and education are pillars of the reception area – part of The Receptionists.
You can talk of these people as being Receptionists, you can talk of them as puppets or opportunists, or simply describe them as family people putting their own first or peasants trying to make ends meet. You can talk of them as civil service, soldiers or police. But what needs to be recognised is that until strategies get beyond these fronts and are directed at those with the power there is going to be little change. Meanwhile we can work within our communities. The church group doing good, trade union activism at the grass roots level, these communal farmers in Kenya, Vandana Shiva’s seed protectors, Community-Supported Agriculture, Horizontalidad and the initiatives that are coming out of Central and South America – Beyond Elections, all of these things are change in progress – not change driven by a common idealistic agenda. These are people who are compromising with each other to reach consensus, but not compromising with the 1%.
And what is important is that when these people are doing their “thing”, they are happy. Whilst the wage-slaves work for the new car and lose their souls, community activity brings its own soul and happiness. Compromise for consensus, do not compromise with the 1% and do not compromise with your own Path because that is where there is the greatest happiness.
Posts Tagged ‘Law’
Tags: Compromise, Corporatocracy, Law, Occupy, patents
Tags: Corporatocracy, diet, GM, Law, mb, patents
This blogentry about the the Future of Food was intentionally enigmatic for two reasons. Firstly I hoped my reader would watch it, and secondly I have not internalised the full ramifications of thefilm that genuinely frightened me.
Let me place some of my fears in context. I am what is termed a health freak, or at least I have been since I retired. The basis of this “health-freakness” is that I follow a natural unprocessed diet of grains, legumes, veg and fruit – with a bit of fish for B12. I was put onto this health diet when I visited a natural health practititoner who told me my reflux plus problems were what is termed “GERD”, and that to recover from this disease I needed to eat “naturally”. I listened to his advice, and bit-by-bit my health has improved; I have just turned 60 and whilst my legs are weakening from football injuries overall I feel my health is improving.
That improvement sounds a stupid thing to say given my age but it has a sound basis in natural thinking. Every 7 years our bodies regenerate themselves based on the quality of food we put in, and since that quality has improved my health has improved. I have not had the stress of teaching so that also has improved my health. So at a time when western people are traditionally beginning to suffer with accumulated lifetime degenerative diseases based on the toxicity of the foods they eat, my health is improving.
It is no accident that I became ill, it was because of the foods I ate and the hard work I did. In our lifetimes we cannot do much about being wage-slaves but we can do something about the foods we eat. UNTIL …. along comes Monsanto. Using Nature’s elements and a corrupt legal system – a legal system that favours the 1% – they have started a process to control all our food. Food begins life on the farm, is processed, and is sold in our shops. For me any food that is processed causes disease, I have cut out processing and mostly just eat organic. The organic movement is slowly growing until now with Monsanto – they are trying to block it by controlling seeds.
How can you patent something that belongs to Nature such as seeds? The fact that the law has allowed this shows exactly how unfair the law is. There is a phrase “one law for the rich and one law for the poor”. With the repressive violence shown to the Occupy movement globally we have “one law for the 1%”, and with the patenting of seeds we have “one law for the 1% BigFood”. The damage to humans caused by GM foods has not been assessed as discussed in the the Future of Food. But for me there is no doubt. I have experienced the healing that comes from eating Nature’s food, I know the disease that can come from processed foods. But how much worse will it be when that food has been genetically altered?
Still at least I can buy organic food? Not after a while, and that is the power of the patent when misused in our corrupt system. Even though the patent had been accepted, it shouldn’t affect organic farmers. After all they can still grow their crops and sell them. But then Nature steps in, the wind blows the bees pollinate and plants from GM seeds are found on organic farms. Now anyone who knows organic finds this an abhorrence, and would support the courts fining Monsanto for the pollination of their seeds on someone else’s land. But no, the law has said that by patent because the seeds have been found on these farmers’ land they have stolen it. I have a hard time believing that the law can say this, this is extreme even for 1% law, but that is the case. In this clip a lawyer for some organic farmers explains some of the efforts he has made to fight Monsanto’s 1% law.
With Nature’s collusion, over a period of time Monsanto will control the seeds for all the US, and the US won’t even have the recourse to organic food. So grow it in your own garden? Can you stop nature blowing the wind? Can the organic farmers patent the natural foods? NO. It is Nature. Monsanto got away with it because scientists manipulated the genes and then claimed it as an “invention” – GM.
Now what is clear from the the Future of Food is that Monsanto have no intention of limiting their monopoly to the US. Through Bill Gates and other 1% benefaction GM foods are being marketed in Africa as poverty reduction because of the supposed increased yield. As both the the Future of Food and Dan Ravicher points out the evidence is not clear that there is increased yield. What is clear is that once they have used the planting combination of GM seeds and Roundup farmers are ensnared annually to buy Monsanto products. India has had Monsanto for a while. The farmers have bought into the trap, cannot make ends meet, and are committing suicide (unbiased? – system argument presenting case for GM).
Thailand has strong anti-GM laws but GM has reached Kanchanaburi. European peoples might well fight the introduction of GM but the governments are in the hands of the 1% and in our system of government profits outplays democracy any day.
But the truth is these heinous crimes are sneaking in. Monsanto is slowly getting control of all farm production. Most people kind of know that GM is wrong but they are not as frightened as I am. Why? I know processed food causes disease, most people don’t so they are not as frightened. Monsanto is far bigger than Dan Ravicher and his organic farmers.
Here in Thailand it is hard to find organic produce but I can mostly. The law here does not prohibit organic produce, the people in general are not aware. But they do fight GM so I suspect in my lifetime I will be able to eat mostly healthily. I would have less confidence back in the UK, but in my lifetime it would probably be just OK. But what about the kids?
Kids haven’t got the sense to keep away from processed foods. The sugar- and MSG-baited products have already had an impact on the earlier onset of lifestyle degenerative disease. But what is worse is an increase in disorders such as ADHD which many claim comes from the toxins (preservatives) in our foods. But what will be the new generation of GM diseases be like?
People call them frankenfoods, what will that mean for our kids?
Update 21/9/13 – here is a clip belying the myths that surround GM foods:-
Bill Gates “lies” are covered in this clip.
The 1% are breaking the rule of law in the West and in the Middle East – previously in Argentina. A rule of law is important for any civilised society so breaking the rule of law is an important consideration.
There is a catchphrase often used “There is one rule for the rich and one for the poor”. Many people use this phrase in anger and frustration but few actually see the legal system designed this way. The actual design of our legal system is that there is one rule for the 1% and one rule for the 99% – just a contemporary phraseology of the same thing. I have previously discussed the TV programme Blue Bloods. The programme acts out a situation of a New York cop family with a lawyer and the police chief, and I like it because there are political and personal dynamics discussed. In this pro-NYPD programme there is a general direction that the police care for society, and that there are many dynamics pesonal and otherwise together with plenty of moral searching. I like this because it gives me a good feeling about the direction of the human spirit.
But the reality is completely different. In White Plains a policeman, facing pending charges of racism, has killed Kenneth Washington, a black 68-year-old war veteran with a heart condition, in response to a concern about a medical transmitter. In Florida a white vigilante with a history of racist incidents has murdered a black teenager, Trayvon Martin, and the police haven’t arrested him – just arrested 45 days later. Racism in the police force, is that the 1%? Yes, because in an oppressive society we always victimise the weakest. Allowing the police to get away with this weakens the rule of law because of the lack of trust for the police. But the black community have lived with this a long time, and society in general accepts this.
Since 9/11 all kinds of infringements of liberty have occurred, in the name of anti-terrorism. In the UK this has been discussed in the documentary “Taking Liberties”. In NYPD there has been many developments of what has been classified as Islamophobic – part of a wider created social malaise. The Islamic communities in the West now have to come to terms with the same racism as black people always have had to endure.
But now there is blatant political oppression at an unprecented level happening. Before I explain that let us consider Thatcher and the miners’ strike. The miners’ strike became the event that broke the back of British trade unionism. Sadly it started badly because even in the the failed representational democratic model the strike did not follow its own rules. The miners’ strike was not started by a majority of the elected miners’ representatives on its executive, and because of the prevalence of Trotskyist groups on the left demanding the working-class rise up many people did not back the strike initially. Over time the movement realised it had become an event in its history, but by then it was too late. I have crossed Trotskyist picket lines – when less political, they are intimidating. In the miners’ strike the police escorted non-miners’ union workers across the line. This was a clear political act in which the police supported the 1%, at that time we called them capitalists, against the 99% – the bourgeoisie.
This triggered my understanding of the real rule of law, the real role of the police, they are there to protect the lives and lifestyle of the 1%. The rule of law that we all adhere to gives society a code of behaviour or morality that good people want to adhere to, so the homes of good people are protected along with the homes and lifestyle of the 1%. But that is an acceptable consequence for the 1%, the law is there to protect their homes first and the homes of the 99% second; in many ways the two work hand-in-hand but that is not the reason.
Following the way the law worked during the miners’ strike I began to watch the stock exchange with its SEC – the stock exchange is a self-regulated body like the police ie not subject to the rule of law. There were token prosecutions but I saw these as token and saw that the SEC were there primarily to ensure the continuation of the criminal activities that are its daily business – by punishing those who become an embarrassment through excessive greed rather than punishing crime in general. There is no rule of law there – it is a rich rule “Don’t become an embarrassment or we might be forced to make a token sacrifice”. In this way the stock exchange functioned in the interest of all those who speculated, and people were envious of the rich – but at least this is rule of law.
But the 1% got greedy. They speculated on hedge funds that had no substance – see John Bird and John Fortune explain this clearly. Not only this but in the US people were given fraudulent mortgages such as mortgages whose repayments increased unreasonably after a period of time thus ensuring default – without informing the mortgagees – clear fraud by misrepresentation to make a profit. Many such frauds were carried out and good people have lost their homes, not just those who could not afford them in the first place.
At the same time what is happening in the tax system? The burden is falling increasingly on the individual as the 1% use this defunct model of “trickle-down” to avoid paying tax as corporations. Is it right that in the US 26 of the major corporations paid no tax?
And what have western governments done? They have continued with policies that support the 1% – not surprising really as the 1% are the puppet masters – discussed in “Lifting the Veil”. These policies are presented to the people as “trickle-down”, but whilst huge bailout money has been given out of government coffers there has been no “trickle-down”, 1% institutions are now showing profits, and bankers have awarded themselves huge bonuses from the bailout. And most of the fraudulent schemes by the banksters have not resulted in criminal prosecution. This 1% greed has exposed the law for what it is, a measure to protect the 1%, as opposed to a measure to protect people.
As a consequence of this financial exploitation people have started to show their anger at the system publicly, they are demonstrating on the streets. This demonstration has come to be known as Occupy. This movement is a direct response to 1% exploitation, its target is the 1%, and its modus operandi is genuine democracy as opposed to electoral and representational democracy that the 1% has well under control. Before Occupy Wall Street started Morgan Chase gave a donation of $4million to NYPD, and OWS was moved away from Chase Plaza to Zuccotti park – that became known as Liberty Plaza (discussed here). Acts of unreasonable violence on the part of the police have been perpetrated on the non-violent protesters, and even thoug mainstream media has not been reporting the truth, most people know this happening and have to intentionall avoid the truth to accept the police actions. What is important for the system to continue to work in favour of the 1% is that the majority of people have to believe that the system is working but for a few exceptions. Occupy exposes this myth, and the law is being used to oppress them. This is a clear example of the rule of law being broken down by the greed of the 1%.
One of the things I have always believed in is brinkmanship, this worked in the Cold War era where given the nuclear potential for global destruction crisis never turned into global catastrophe. Now however the 1% greed has become so gross that decent human institutions such as the rule of law are being sacrificied on the altar of 1% greed. since Reagan deregulation has enabled this excessive greed and these addicted hedonists have taken their profits whilst disdaining humanity and the moral values of its community. With the rule of law going people are saying if there is no law only self-protection then we needn’t adhere to a moral code ourselves.
Typical of this for me is the Pirate party, here is a TED talk from one of its Swedish founders. Its principles are not moral, they simply say why should the 1% exploit us unreasonably we are going to act in our self-interest. The internet has become the vehicle for such interest, and people are able to download all kinds of media for free. Hollywood are trying to use political pressure to prevent this, but they have found that it is too expensive for them to do so by reasonable law ie prosecuting on an individual criminal basis. Megaupload is an obvious example. I do not know the full legal arguments on either side, but here is a view of megaupload. You could download Hollywood movies from megaupload. as someone uploads those movies. There are other megaupload users who have uploaded genuine materials for storage and distribution. Legally the law is not certain as to whether the organisers of megaupload are responsible. However the FBI closed down Megaupload globally. On what basis? They have the power to do it. Genuine users of megaupload want their stuff back and can’t get it. Is this justice? No. One could clearly argue that someone who has uploaded a Hollywood movie onto megaupload is breaking copyright and could merit prosecution, but Hollywood cannot afford to prosecute on an individual basis. So they use power and influence to create injustice. And the response – the Pirate party. We will become a political party with no morals code exerting our influence to continue to do so in terms of privacy etc. And in this article you can see that throughout Europe it has popular appeal in elections.
How far will this go? More and more the 1% repress genuine dissent, more and more people will use the internet for immoral purpose. How far will this spill into daily life? Last year there were riots in the UK in which young people stole from wherever they wanted. Whilst I can see an underlying political expression in this, in practice it was little more than young people taking the opportunity to steal. And to a certain extent the police let it happen and the government response has been a recent law for a huge increase in state monitoring of people. What will the impacts of this state repression be?
This is just lawlessness brought about by a 1% system who have become so addicted they care not nwhat people think of them. This is so dangerous. Nero is fiddling.
Update on Trayvon Martin 28/7/13 – see this blog.
21/9/13 – This page shows the increasing protest across the globe – note they started after Vietnam!!
21/9/13 – Edward Snowden revelations this year shows how far this state repression is going.