• The Corporate Media: Suffering From Truth Emergency

    January 30, 2010 // 1 Comment »

    We have an elite that has a stranglehold on what gets heard through its grip on professional societies and the major print and TV news. Prizes, media attention, peer approval go to very few media outlets. It’s well- known that only reporters and columnists at a handful of papers get serious attention. That’s a truly dangerous state of affairs and we’re suffering the fall-out from it. What makes it even worse is that news itself is more and more swept aside by trashy, sensation-seeking reporting, which leaves the audience with misinformation or simply a great black hole of ignorance.

    Mickey Huff and Peter Phillips analyze the “truth emergency” ravaging the corporate media in the West (and to a lesser degree, everywhere):

    “Truth Emergency: Keeping the Facts at Bay

    The truth comes as conqueror only because we have lost the art of receiving it as guest.
    – Rabindranath Tagore

    What are some of these truths, that not knowing them creates a literal state of emergency for human society? Here are two of many possible examples. A 2008 report from The World Bank admitted that in 2005, over three billion people lived on less than $2.50 a day and about forty-four percent of these people survive on less than $1.25. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in urban areas of so-called developing nations. Simple items Americans take for granted like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations, television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possible for billions of people.6

    In another ignored but related story, Starvation.net logged the increasing impacts of world hunger and starvation. Over 30,000 people a day (eighty-five percent of children under five) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and starvation. The number of deaths has exceeded three hundred million people over the past forty years. These stories should be alarming headlines, certainly more significant than celebrity tripe and tabloid hype.7

    Continuing on the theme of human poverty and its ramifications, farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up four percent from the year before, yet, billions of people go hungry every day. The website Grain.org describes the core reasons for continuing hunger in a recent article “Making a Killing from Hunger.” It turns out that while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control the global food prices and distribution. Starvation is profitable for corporations when demands for food push the prices up. Cargill announced that profits for commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were eighty-six percent above 2007. World food prices grew twenty-two percent from June 2007 to June 2008 and a significant portion of the increase was propelled by the $175 billion invested in commodity futures that speculate on price instead of seeking to feed the hungry. This results in erratic food price spirals, both up and down, with food insecurity remaining widespread.

    My Comment:

    Some of this commentary of course paints speculation with too broad a brush. Futures markets can, and do, provide efficient allocation of resources if they function as they should. The problem is not the futures market but the corruption of the market and the constant meddling in it by the state, which blunts the normal checks that the market would otherwise provide.

    And again that goes back to public culture and professional standards that have become debased. The deeper question is how they became debased.

    Which, of course, leads us to the government’s manipulation of the interest rate. That is where the problem lies.

    But meanwhile, where is the media in all this? Providing the context so people can understand what’s going on?

    No. It’s rooting around in John Edward’s trash can……

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Media, Pols and Pundits, Psyops

    The Demonic Style: Valentine On Military Historians, Avatars, and the CIA

    January 11, 2010 // 1 Comment »

    Insight into why the revisionist media never ‘gets’ it:

    “The extent to which this practice existed was revealed in 1975, when William Colby informed a congressional committee that more than 500 CIA officers were operating under cover as corporate executives and that 40 CIA officers were posing as journalists.

    “When it comes to the CIA and the press, one hand washes the other. In order to have access to informed officials, reporters frequently suppress or distort stories. In return, officials leak stories to reporters to whom they owe favors.

    (more…)

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Economy, Iraq War, Media, Mobs, Psyops, War, Writing

    Swine-Flu Vaccine Facts That Should Frighten You

    January 1, 2010 // 1 Comment »

    One of the best read articles in 2009 on Lew Rockwell was  one by Bill Sardi on eighteen reasons you shouldn´t take the swine flu vaccine.  Here´s an excerpt, but it´s worth reading the whole piece.

    “4. The vaccines will be produced by no less than four different manufacturers, possibly with different additives (called adjuvants) and manufacturing methods. The two flu inoculations may be derived from a multi-dose vial and in a crisis, and in short supply, it will be diluted to provide more doses and then adjuvants must be added to trigger a stronger immune response. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Would you permit your children to be injected with lead? Lead is very harmful to the brain. Then why would you sign a consent form for your kids to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead? Injecting mercury may fry the brains of American kids.

    (more…)

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Media, Mobs, Police State, Pols and Pundits, Psyops

    Why We Believe Propaganda

    December 31, 2009 // 4 Comments »

    From a piece I wrote in 2005, “America´s Downing Syndrome,” about why the airwar in Iraq was never represented in media coverage:

    “And how does the public conscience square with all this? Simple. The civilians who are fair game are not American civilians. The skies that are threatened are not American skies. It may take a village to raise a child, but given enough air power, we now know also that it only takes a child to raze a village. Our children, their villages. And in return for our invulnerability, we make cultural icons out of bomber pilots, turning a blind eye to their ravages abroad. While the grunt that kills and is killed on the scorched ground bears the burden of public backlash against any horrors of war making that might elude censorship, his mates in the clouds are untouchable. Atrocities are always only committed on earth. So a Lieutenant Calley is court-martialed over My Lai and a Charles Graner is imprisoned for Abu Ghraib, but the bombers who wreak havoc on a magnitude far grander not only walk free, but are feted by a society in which for many reasons the air force is substantially white and the officer corps even whiter.

    But there’s more. Strategic bombing directed broadly against a country´s will or morale rather than military targets has nearly always been associated with civilian not military control. Pen-pushers in think tanks and journals, couch-crusaders on Wall Street and Main Street are the most hysterical groupies for total war from the skies. (9) Remote from actual bloodletting, they’re still the quickest to tote up grand calculations of its necessity in bringing about their favorite utopia. It was Lyndon Johnson, not the generals, who first ratcheted up the air war against North Vietnam to genocidal proportions.

    And because the civilian leadership unlike the military is always indebted to public opinion for its existence, it´s ultimately public approval rather than military need that drives air war against civilians, which is why the corporate media obligingly does its bit to keep that approval going.

    Media and government duplicity, widespread intoxication with technological wizardry, a deadly sense of impunity combined with a deadlier sense of omnipotence, cultural myth making, and socio-economic class are the causes of America’s fundamentally diseased relationship with air power and thus with the raw foundation of imperial might. It is the cognitive disease which periodically manifests itself in redundant “smoking-guns” and “exposes” about memos whose sole purpose apparently is to maintain our illusion of ourselves as eternal naifs duped by an endless procession of charlatans in government.

    Clearly, it’s not merely war propaganda so much as the public´s receptivity to war propaganda that’s the problem. The addiction to war-as-Grand Theft Auto reveals an insatiable craving in the bowels of the military-industrial leviathan for physical violence. Air war feeds that craving while disarming us with its technical virtuosity and its remote-controlled, surreal impersonality.

    Air war works because it displays naked aggression masked as defense, hard core furtively masquerading as family viewing in the American living room. It’s the secret fix that lets us look like good guys but act like bad guys; it’s the other face of the double-eagle, the predator behind the mask of the protector.

    Air war is the white noise of a consumer society so narcotized that only violence makes us feel alive. If we no longer see it, hear it, or talk about it in the heart of empire, it’s ultimately only because for more than fifty years now, we’ve never really done without it.”

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Cognition, Empire, Media, Mobs, Psyops

    Open Letter To The Secretary-General Of UN

    December 9, 2009 // 2 Comments »

    Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
    Wednesday, December 9th 2009, 2:07 AM EST
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

    Dear Secretary-General,

    Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

    Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

    We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
    Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

    Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

    Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

    Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate…”

    For the rest of the post and the complete list of signatories, see Climate realists.

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Finance, Globalization, Kleptocracy

    The Spectacle of General Secrecy

    October 5, 2009 // 2 Comments »

    Political theorist Guy de Bord on the spectacle of public life:

    “The concentrated spectacle

    The spectacle associated with concentrated bureaucracy. Debord associated this spectacular form mostly with the Eastern Bloc and Fascism, although today mixed backward economies import it, and even advanced capitalist countries in times of crisis. Every aspect of life, like property, music, and communication is concentrated and is identified with the bureaucratic class. The concentrated spectacle generally identifies itself with a powerful political leader. The concentrated spectacle is made effective through a state of permanent violence and police terror.[edit]

    The diffuse spectacle

    The spectacle associated with advanced capitalism and commodity abundance. In the diffuse spectacle, different commodities conflict with each other, preventing the consumer from consuming the whole. Each commodity claims itself as the only existent one, and tries to impose itself over the other commodities:

    Irreconcilable claims jockey for position on the stage of the affluent economy’s unified spectacle, and different star commodities simultaneously promote conflicting social policies. The automobile spectacle, for example, strives for a perfect traffic flow entailing the destruction of old urban districts, while the city spectacle needs to preserve those districts as tourist attractions.

    The diffuse spectacle is more effective than the concentrated spectacle. The diffuse spectacle operates mostly through seduction, while the concentrated spectacle operates mostly through violence. Because of this, Debord argues that the diffuse spectacle is more effective at suppressing non-spectacular opinions than the concentrated spectacle.

    The integrated spectacle

    The spectacle associated with modern capitalist countries. The integrated spectacle borrows traits from the diffuse and concentrated spectacle to form a new synthesis. Debord argues that this is a very recent form of spectacular manifestation, and that it was pioneered in France and Italy.

    According to Debord, the integrated spectacle goes by the label of liberal democracy. This spectacle introduces a state of permanent general secrecy, where experts and specialists dictate the morality, statistics, and opinions of the spectacle. Terrorism is the invented enemy of the spectacle, which specialists compare with their “liberal democracy”, pointing out the superiority of the latter one. Debord argues that without terrorism, the integrated spectacle wouldn’t survive, for it needs to be compared to something in order to show its “obvious” perfection and superiority.”

    My Comment:

    Thanks to reader J. T. Gordon for reminding me of this. I’ve posted before on de Bord and the notion of the spectacle of society. Like so much powerful analysis, this one too has roots in the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most productive thinkers of the last 150 years.

    What should be noted here is that in the spectacle of secrecy, the greatest emphasis is placed on openness. Thus, “freedom of speech”  occupies a central position in the culture. By this means, all barriers to privacy are brought down, all psychological barriers between the individual and the crowd. Yet, this openness at one level (in public culture) operates side-by-side with secrecy at the highest level (governments and corporate leaders).

    (More later)

    Back…

    Reading through this again, I feel I need to question De Bord’s division, which corresponds to communist, capitalist and liberal democratic. It’s too neat. In fact, things are much more muddy

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Art and Ideas, Cognition, Crowds, Political Theory

    Matt Taibbi Shills for Neocons?

    September 23, 2009 // 5 Comments »

    Well, what a surprise. Not.

    Taibbi is a very funny writer and if this excerpt at Alternet is any indication, his new book bashing the 9-11 movement is a great read.

    But, if the excerpt is any indication, it’s also a superficial read.

    Until the moment I saw this piece, I was undecided about Taibbi. I’ve noted in earlier posts that he seemed to jump far too eagerly on the pair that cooked up the derivative deals that got AIG in a mess I noted that that emphasis steered the focus away from  Hank Greenberg, AIG’s corrupt boss. It was the first thing that made me wonder about Taibbi. 

    [Added on 9/24 10:16 AM: Greenberg is central to the 9-11 story. AIG has a long history that goes back to US corporate and political espionage in China and the CIA's involvement in that. Much of the American housing, medicare, medicaid, and financial industry has been corrupted by nothing more than elaborate versions of old fashioned insurance hustles. No wonder the company at the center of the whole financial crisis is an insurance giant] 

    The next red flag was the rapid way in which he shot to the head of the Goldman Sachs bashing (almost a decade after any half-awake journalist in New York should have been alert) and only after GS’s name was pretty much mud, no thanks to the New York media. It smacked of damage control and gate-keeping.

    The 9-11 movement bashing seems to confirm it. Read through the Alternet piece and you’ll see it’s a mass of non-sequitors, assumptions, strawmen, and red herrings. He uses his writing talents to divert and mislead. He’s the latest in a series of popular names jumping onto the 9-11-bashing bandwagon, even from the libertarian side. I’m naming no names, but you know who they are.

    Here’s one single thing any of them have to explain. Why were they all so late in coming to the Goldman story? Why is it that the people who got it right about Goldman, the financial crisis, torture, and everything else…are also those who do NOT accept the official story?

    Doesn’t that imply that the world view that’s been most accurate and prescient over the last several years is the worldview that doubts the 9-11 story? The skeptics simply have a powerful and credible hypothesis that makes far better sense of things than the 9-11 fundamentalists.

    TAIBBI:

    “The 9/11 Truth movement is really distinguished by a kind of defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America’s ruling class. In 9/11 lore the people who staff the White House, the security agencies, the Pentagon and groups like PNAC and the Council of Foreign Relations are imagined to be a monolithic, united class of dastardly, swashbuckling risk-takers with permanent hard-ons for Bourne Supremacy-style “false flag” and “black bag” operations, instead of the mundanely greedy, risk-averse, backstabbing, lawn-tending, half-clever suburban golfers they are in real life. It completely misunderstands the nature of American government — fails to see that the old maxim about “the business of America is business” is absolutely true, that the federal government in this country is really just a lo-rent time-share property seasonally occupied by this or that clan of financial interests, each of which takes its 4-year turn at the helm tinkering with the tax laws and regulatory code and the rates at the Fed in the way it thinks will best keep the money train rolling.The people who really run America don’t send the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney to the White House to cook up boat-rocking, maniacal world-domination plans and commit massive criminal conspiracies on live national television; they send them there to repeal PUCHA and dole out funds for the F-22 and pass energy bills with $14 billion tax breaks and slash fuel efficiency standards and do all the other shit that never makes the papers but keeps Wall Street and the country’s corporate boardrooms happy. You don’t elect politicians to commit crimes; you elect politicians to make your crimes legal.”

    And here’s a face-off between Taibbi and theologian David Griffin on 9-11. It’s not pretty. Taibbit comes off as ignorant, belligerent and vulgar, which is unfortunate because he’s a talented writer and has some good instincts. But he’s no match in intellect or the ability to argue for David Griffin, whom I know from his academic writing on process theology.

    I’m a strong supporter of 9-11 “truthers” but don’t write on the subject myself for several reasons -

    *Keeping track of the story is hard enough; keeping track of the various splinter 9-11 groups is impossible.
    *Without absolute mastery of the details, you’re liable to get waylaid by bogus information on the web.
    *There are enough people working on the story without my jumping in.

    But I admit, I’m sorely tempted at times like this…

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Media, Psyops

A