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 ‘patents’
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 ramifications of what this movie, the Future of Food, portends are the most frightening of all that I have done on cancer food and health.
I have just finishing watching Forbidden Cures, and it was heart-breaking to see genuine people who felt they had cured cancer being prohibited from helping others. Of the supposed sures the movie looked at in detail there were patterns. Firstly these cures were herbal or dietary, in other words there was no allopathic intervention such as radiation or chemo. Whether they cured cancer or not, no harm could come from what was offered as these natural cures. In the US the FDA has accepted operations, radiation therapy and chemotherapy as cures. What is noticeable about these “accepted” cures is that they are costly and there is no evidence that they actually work. The radiation and chemotherapy are also definitely carcinogenic, the natural cures discussed in the documentary were not.
But the real issue the documentary exposed is that all the supposed natural cures could not be patented, in other words BigPharma could not make huge profits from these cures as they were natural medicine. I am happy to accept that the 1% would block investigation of cures because the 1% could not profit from them but when you see a movie examining many of the possible cures for cancer that have not been investigated and to find that the reason is that there can be no patents it is still staggering. If there are no patents I could understand why BigPharma would not finance the research. But what about the government? Doesn’t the government have a vested interest in seeking cheap natural cures for its people? Quite clearly not. My politics says that the 1% owns the government, and as Rockefeller and Carnegie demonstrated by the way they controlled medical training at the beginning of the century the 1% is clearly interested in supporting BigPharma and the cancer industry.
Here is Harriet Washington discussing the importance of patents, this time patenting life for profits.
Some medical research might benefit humanity but BigPharma makes huge profits on drugs that are life-threatening. Clearly this system needs fixing.
And this before you consider that BigPharma is trying to prevent the spreading of the notion that healthy eating can cure many diseases – as discussed in cancer on this blog.