The Congo Thing

[Sorry for the relatively long hiatus... it's what happens in Blogistan, so I've heard...]

I've been reading a book I received as a door prize at an event in Santa Fe a few weeks ago, a book called "Captive in the Congo, A Consul's Return to the Heart of Darkness" by Michael P. E. Hoyt.

I haven't gotten very far into it, but so far it's a pretty good read as these things go, though I take strenuous issue with the notion that the United States Government is/was somehow innocent or blameless for what happened to the Congo during and after the Belgian colonial period.

The author was appointed US Consul in Stanleyville in 1964, and within a couple of weeks, he was taken hostage along with about 250 others -- Americans, Belgians and some other Westerners and Congolese -- by rebels, "Lumumbist Rebels" they are called, who captured and held Stanleyville until the hostages were rescued by a joint Belgian/American/Cuban exile quasi-military operation that routed the rebels at least temporarily.

Who remembers any of this? I do, strangely, at least I recall parts of it, some of the names of the players and the places where some of the events of the period took place. It was on all the news at the time, but there was something fascinating about the Congolese independence movement, Patrice Lumumba, the strategic jockeying for power over Darkest Africa between the Soviet Union and the "West," the appalling behavior of the Belgians, the disgusting behavior of Americans. It was all amazing and revelatory to me at a time when I was barely conscious of politics and world events at all.

I was only 12 when the Belgian Congo achieved a very fragile independence, and only 16 when the events in this book took place.

Yet what happened -- or at least what was reported -- has left an impression on me to this day.

I wrote about Lumumba and the Belgians and the coup that overthrew him and his subsequent assassination almost five years ago now. At the time it happened, it was shocking to me, but it was being purveyed as simply the "tragic way of the world," oh well, what can you do, It's Africa, and all that.

The fact that Lumumba was an African nationalist who saw the future of the Congo and Africa in general as a future freed from Euro-American colonial oppression and exploitation was what got him overthrown and killed. The Belgians had no qualms whatever about doing what wet work was necessary to maintain control over their captured territory even if a nominal independence was granted under pressure. Exterminating a pest like Lumumba was all in a day's work for the Belgian mercenaries and their allies who continued to infest the Congo long after "independence."

Americans were part of the neocolonial pattern in Africa even as all the countries of the continent were nominally freed from their colonial overlords. They would all become economic vassals of their former colonial masters or of the transnational corporate interests fostered by the United States. There would be no alternative.

And whatever ruin was brought in the wake of this new -- but not so new at all -- order would be the problems of the Natives, not of the West or the Powers the West represented.

Natives continued to struggle for freedom from neocolonialism in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa, and Hoyt makes abundantly clear what the Official Line was about that: the Rebels were savages with little or no conception of the higher purposes for which the United States and the West were "helping" in Africa; they relied on magic to achieve incoherent ends; they brutalized and killed with bloody abandon; they could not be reasoned with; they could only be met with force and crushed.

And so it would be.

I've noticed a through line of madness that's built in to the framework of the diplomatic service of which Hoyt was a part and from which he retired (like many others of his ilk have) to Santa Fe. Madness is the word I use because of the consistency of error in American foreign policy, error which literally cannot be corrected. It is built in, part of the DNA of the Foreign Service, the CIA, and all the other "helping" agencies that go to make up the Foreign Service.

Hoyt, like so many of his peers, has no conception of the policy errors he's implementing. The institutionalization of error and the inability to do anything to correct it is one of the fundamentals of American government(s) and policy, as I found out in my eleven years in the federal service.

In the Congo, the errors compound and continue. Things may get slightly better or worse at any given time, but the underlying premise of American policy in the Congo, in Africa, and in most places around the world is simply wrong. And there is no earthly way to fix it.

Thus all the nationalist and nativist uprisings we witness. People will not put up with the kinds of indignities, injustices, exploitations and worse that come with American-style or any other style of neocolonialism without resistance. The use of force to put down the rebellions ultimately leads to more and more and more of them, until inevitably the system that neocolonialism supports collapses.

The horrors that people go through in the lead-up to the collapse are unnecessary and yet somehow seem inevitable so long as colonialism and neo-colonialism is in power and able to assert power over weaker interests.

We see what a mess so much of Africa is to this day as its neocolonial exploitation continues apace. We see the rebellions of people who understand exactly what's been happening and want it stopped. We see the consistency of error in American foreign policy with regard to Africa.

This book, despite my disagreement with the premise of American exceptionalism and innocence, helps set the stage for the perpetuation of errors to come.

I am more and more convinced that changing it requires much more than an election or two...

Heart of Darkness indeed.

Regarding the House Gerrymander

It's been pointed out many times lately that the TeaBaggers in the House are running the show because they are all in safe seats and nothing at all can dislodge them short of revolution -- something that's not going to happen, at least not from the left.

Their districts were gerrymandered by Republican legislatures following the 2010 census; at this point, there's no way to rearrange the district boundaries until after the 2020 census. Isn't that special?

But the political failure, which isn't generally noted, goes back to the 2010 election, not the census, in which the Democrats basically ceded state level and many local level elections by not contesting seats or not contesting them vigorously (like funding Democratic candidates). This was one of the starkest signs that the Dems -- who had gained such majorities in the 2008 elections -- were simply giving up.

We may want to consider one day why the Big Wigs and Pooh-Bahs of the Party did this. From my perspective, it was a calculated and deliberate move, with full knowledge aforethought what it would lead to -- exactly where we are, with a government shutdown and looming federal government debt default, both engineered and implemented for one main reason: to have the ability and wherewithal and reason to "restructure" government along the lines of and in the interests of the corporate owners and rulers.

This is the End Game of the sequence of actions that became clear when the Supreme Court lawlessly intervened in the election of 2000, following, of course, the ridiculous spectacle of the Clinton Impeachment.

The High-level Dems in my view threw the election of 2010 for the purpose of enabling the Rs to manage their minority take-over gambit as smoothly as possible -- and as soon as they were able.

Here we are.

On the Wreck of the US of A (2013-2014)

The Shutdown is proceeding apace, and it looks fair to be... accommodated, or rather hardly noticed, by the multitudes, much like the Sequester. Ah, glory!

Well, given the fact that the Shutdown was more important than even having another War! we have to give Our Rulers some credit here. If there is a semblance of Peace breaking out in the Middle East (let's not count on it) and for the moment the missiles aren't flying at Damascus from either the Mediterranean Fleet or that nasty little state of Israel, we can ponder the fact that Those In Charge have their Priorities.

First Things First.

And the first thing, right now, is the take down of the Federal Government. One assumes that there will be a subsequent "rebuilding" phase, as there have been some piece by piece restoration bills hammered out between the Congress That Says No and the White House over the last few days.

They say this is all over Obamacare and the necessity to get rid of it. If it were, I'd almost be a happy camper, but it's not. Obamacare is a pig in a poke as those of us in favor of Single Payer/Medicare for All have known since kick-off day to get 'er done back in 2009. Let's not fool ourselves; this semi-universal health insurance program is first and foremost a profit-guarantee for major insurance companies and major health care providers essentially in perpetuity. The radicals in Congress agitating the Shutdown don't want to stop that, not on a bet. What they want to stop is any requirement imposed on Health Care Insurance and the Industry to provide service in exchange for their guaranteed profits and to stop the subsidy payments to the Rabble to help cover the health insurance premiums they are compelled to pay.

That's all.

No, this isn't really about Obamacare at all, it is about gaining full control of the Federal Government and re-making it into what the Radicals think it should be: an invasive and controlling force on behalf of favored segments of the Powers That Be. Nothing more, nothing less.

And they are nearly there.

By taking down the discretionary portion of the Government (some 20% of the budget), then restoring it piece by piece over an extended period, they demonstrate their power as a minority to eventually control everything. That's what the Debt Ceiling battle will be about. The Debt Ceiling battle will involve mandatory spending like Social Security, etc., and it will likely be resolved much the same way: there will be a default on those portions of the debt the Radicals want repudiated, such as the SS Trust Fund, and there will be a restoration, piece by piece, of what they want to preserve.

Of course, it's obvious by now, or at least it should be, that despite all the huffing and puffing and bombast on both sides of the Congressional aisle and at the White House, and despite all the breathless "news" we get through the propaganda media (unfortunately now including almost all the so-called "New Media"), this sequence was laid out long ago, and it became all but inevitable shortly after Obama was re-elected. It has not been a mystery -- except to the Public, of course, who are deliberately kept in the dark about what is really going on and to what object this shit is happening.

Everything's going according to plan.

Evil though it may be...

On The Question of Exemptions From Security State Scrutiny

During the past month or so, we've seen an explosion of interest in the National Security/Surveillance State apparatus, and we've learned about its vast reach around the world and its apparent ability to spy on anyone at any time. How such spywork product is used is still somewhat murky, as we really have no idea which Americans have been spied on by the NSA (leave aside for the moment the question of foreign targets) and to what object if any. There have been suggestions, however, that when the NSA "targets" an American it is for the purpose of domestic law enforcement or active terrorist investigation, and that essentially all the NSA provides in such cases is raw digital data that may or may not be useful in the investigation. But we don't know that. We don't know a lot of things about how our rulers keep tabs on us or what they do with the information.

What we do know is that a number of individuals and institutions have demanded to be exempt from the sort of blanket scrutiny everyone else is under, starting with "the press."

There was, after all, something of a trial balloon on the topic of uncalled for domestic surveillance when the AP Thing (ABQ Journal story; if not a subscriber, you will need to answer a marketing question) broke back in May (was it? doG, it seems so long ago.)  The issue then was slightly different in that phone calling records of AP reporters were sought and looked at by DoJ in connection with an investigation of a leak of high level information to the press. Sound familiar? Sure. The upshot was that not only was the AP marching around in High Dudgeon over this "Chilling of Freedom of the Press," they would demand and have essentially received an exemption from this kind of surveillance scrutiny going forward. Whoo-hoo!

As I pointed out at the time the story was making headlines, though, EVERYONE was subject to the kind of surveillance AP was demanding an exemption from, and the real issue was the intrusive/invasive that was probing everyone's phone records and doG knows what-all with or without warrants. This was in May, remember, a solid month before the NSA story broke in the Guardian. We knew -- or at least "anyone who was paying attention" knew -- that we rabble and proles were being spied on by Our Betters in both the government and the corporate sectors the government serves, and many of us knew how that information was being used, too. Anyone who was or is involved in Occupy, for example has more direct knowledge of the National Surveillance State than most other Americans by far, but America's Muslim community has had much more ongoing negative experiences with it, and black and brown communities in general have been its targets for generations.

At some point though -- variously dated to 2001 (prior to or almost immediately after the installation of the Bushevik regime) or 2005 (when certain devices were installed)  -- the surveillance started including everyone, all phone calls and other telecommunications, at home and abroad, and for a time -- maybe still -- there was someone assigned to surveil every physical address in the country. It was long ago out of control, and the NSA wasn't the chief culprit.

The principal base-line culprit all along has been the corporate entities that collect information on all of us, that analyze and store it, and that share it for a price or in trade with one another and with government agencies. That's where the data-haul comes from for the most part, and quite willingly, too, despite the lies and the denials of many of the corporate culprits.

So comes the AP Thing in May, and AP is demanding an exemption, because of the First Amendment. Never mind the Fourth Amendment because invoking that would mean everyone would be exempt from blanket surveillance, and what's the fun of that?

AP got their exemption in July as the link above describes. After the AP story broke, a FOX "news" reporter was revealed to be under similar surveillance due to another leak investigation, and wah-lah, FOX, too, was given the same exemption as AP. In fact, all "legitimate" so-called news orgs were given the same exemption in the DoJ announcement. Determining who or what is "legitimate" became an issue, but it's clear enough from the announcement that bloggers and independent media are not considered "legitimate" by the corporate media or the DoJ. So at least we know that not everyone who practices journalism is considered "legitimate" -- and we can be pretty sure where that will lead, too.

Needless to say, despite a rather full court press by various media, including much of New Media, Blobosphere and all, the story of surveillance of the AP (and later of FOX) and their demands for exemptions on Constitutional grounds failed to catch the mood of the country, I think because people wondered why should they be exempt while everyone else is being watched all the time?  Constitution? Feh.

On the other hand, when the NSA story broke in June, just about a month after the AP story broke, all holy hell broke loose because, surprise, the upshot of the initial few stories was that EVERYONE was under surveillance by the NSA, and there was really nothing anybody could do about it -- that is if they chose to live in the Modern World.

Oh. Well. What a surprise. "We didn't know..." And we demand....? Going from knowledge of surveillance to the Ask has been something of a rocky road to say the least. Just what is it Snowden, Greenwald and the rest have in mind as the goal as it were? We don't know. They initially said all they wanted was a "debate" about the surveillance they were revealing; then Greenwald the other day in his Argentine interview said that they wanted people to know that certain software was being employed to hoover up all phone and other electronic communications pretty much everywhere and suggested that by knowing this people could take precautions and even elude the hoover. But whatever the case, at no point have Greenwald or Snowden suggested ending the Surveillance State. They haven't even called for the repeal of the legal underpinnings (like AUMF, NDAA, PA, and FAA) that have enabled it and encouraged its metastasis.

I find that rather curious myself. No, all they say they want is the "debate" and for people to have knowledge that they are being surveilled.

All righty then. Implied is the notion that some people should be exempt from blanket surveillance, starting with technically adept people, for example, who know what to do to elude the surveillance bots through strategic technical gamesmanship. I've seen some of them post instructions on how to do it, and it's mostly gobbledygook, useless for everyday people, and probably non-functional in any case due to coding and other errors, whether accidental or deliberate. The fact is many geeks are not inclined to ensure that you are free of surveillance, only that they themselves are. Liberty!

Meanwhile, when the NSA domestic surveillance story was still somewhat new, Congresscritters held hearings and demanded of the spooks giving testimony that they, sitting Congresscritters, be exempted from surveillance, and they were assured that they were indeed exempt. I don't think many of them believed it though, as some of their colleagues had been clearly and obviously surveilled over the past many years, and some of them seem to be convinced that prosecution and blackmail are not unheard of in the Hallowed Halls due to findings of the surveillance bots.

Of course the press and media (well, that part which is "legitimate") demanded -- and got -- their exemption.

Anybody else seeking exemption from general surveillance? You would think the corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms would be automatically exempt. That is where Power is concentrated, yes? Can't have random spooks snooping around among the Highest of the Mighty, can we? In fact, corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms are where much of the snoopery of the rest of us originates, or at least where the plots and plans for it are laid and implemented. Let's not fool ourselves into believing it's any other way.

Of course, people in Greenwald's somewhat... interesting... position would naturally want their own exemption (albeit, he hasn't asked for one specifically for his ownself, not that I know of anyway). Expat world traveler journalist/polemicist/propagandist/provocateurs such as he might actually want to avoid the security/surveillance state for some reason, I don't know what, but he has never indicated that he's suffered personally in any particular or general way from the surveillance he must -- I mean MUST -- be under... hm. How does that work, I wonder? Is he surveilled but exempted from consequences? Or is he not surveilled at all? Or...? Is it something else?

Well, we don't know, and we're unlikely to ever find out, either. Wheels within wheels, don'tchaknow. It is quite an interesting game being played by individuals and institutions seeking to perfect their power relationships with one another, if you will. That much is obvious to me. Their rivalries and controversies have little to do with us, after all. This is a reason why the NSA/Snowden Thing strikes me as a bit overwrought given their apparently top-level at 40,000 feet overlook position, not generally one that affects individuals, nor necessarily does it affect contending institutions in their power plays. Or does it?

What exactly does the NSA do that interferes with the machinations of the Highest of the Mighty? We get some clue now and then when we hear dark rumblings of intellectual property piracy and unauthorized sharing of corporate marketing and other plans through some sort of spy network, but it is a murky tale at best and rarely told with any clarity at all. Is the NSA the lead agency in these matters? Mmm. Could be.

If as may be the corporate boardrooms and the R&D departments are the real playgrounds of the NSA and other spooks, despite denials (who really believes them, anyway?) then the demands for exemption that are background noise right now may have more to do with the nature of the NSA controversy/"scandal" than we know, and once that's worked out to mutual satisfaction, this Thing will settle right down.

We've been living in an era of institutional failure and collapse. Practically everything we've relied on for social, political, and economic stability in our lifetimes has proved to be worthless or has collapsed in failure. Yet wealth and power are ever more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and more and more authoritarian and exploitative rule is being imposed on the masses. In the overall context of institutional collapse and failure and the general imposition of authority and exploitation of the masses, the spook stories and consequent impotent rage they inspire is very useful for the interests who seek to consolidate power over the rest of us.

To me, that's the reason why the NSA story is being played to such a high level of public exposure this Shark Season. Nothing will be done about curbing domestic/international surveillance of the masses, though the masses will be whipped to a frenzy of anger about it. As Naomi Wolf pointed out, the Surveillance State is useless for controlling the masses if they don't know about it. Now they know. They have had an opportunity to vent about it, but their venting results in nothing. Nothing changes. It's the way of the world.

Behind the curtain, however, in that Deep State which actually rules us (oh yes, the Turks have nothing on US), there are many adjustments going on, both here and abroad, and fierce contests are under way over which surviving institutions will hold the primary reins of power. Make no mistake, Greenwald, the Guardian, and more than likely Snowden, are Players in that game. What role they have on the chessboard is an open question, but they are clearly not uninvolved observers and dispassionate Truth Tellers. They are obviously working on behalf of something greater than themselves, but exactly what that might be is still murky -- I have called them Corporate Libertarians, but that doesn't describe their actual roles and goals.

Nor does it reveal where all this is headed. On the surface, it's just another summer shark story, another missing white woman, for the rabble to fret over. But go a bit deeper, and ponder who and what is being "exempted," from scrutiny by the surveillance state, as power is consolidated on behalf of surviving institutions in this era of institutional collapse, and we can start forming a pretty good picture of how the story may play out.

We'll see.

Does the United States Even Have a Government Anymore?

I noticed that the current crop of Obomba Scandals!!!!! opened up almost immediately after the Correspondents' Dinner in April, almost on cue, and that the leading Obomba Scandals!!!! (Benghazi, IRS, Spying on the AP) had been in the hopper for quite some time. They were not "news," they were rehashed previous stories, pumped up to Frenzy Level 12. All of them had been reported on previously -- some, like Benghazi, becoming memes.

Suddenly, we saw the spectacle of Washington, particularly the White House, scrambling and babbling and doing its level best to both inflate and deflate these Scandals!!!! -- depending on which political team was being played for at any given moment. Polling the rabble was constant. Interestingly, none of these Scandals!!!! were resonating much with the public, so another one was introduced, Spying on a FOX reporter!!!! That got a momentary rise, but then even it seemed to settle into the background noise.

These Scandals!!!!! were not catching fire with the unwashed masses, and the White House seemed to be handling each one deftly. Rope-a-Doping Issa was easy. Calling for heads to roll was easy. Some sacrificial heads were offered up, "reforms" were launched, the Frenzy died down.

Then there came the Snowden Thing from the Guardian, and All Holy Hell broke loose -- at least for a time -- as the Nation's Sekrits!!!! were Exposed!!!! EVERYONE WAS BEING SPIED ON ALL THE TIME, AIYEEEE!!!! Run for your lives, Children, we're all going to DIEEEEEE!!!!

Yes, well. When the AP Surveillance story was being pumped up, I, among others, pointed out that everyone was subject to intrusive surveillance, had been for a long time, and now it seemed the AP was demanding an exemption. Why should they be exempt when the People are not? At what point do we turn this around and demand that the universal and blanket surveillance that everyone is under be curtailed?

I thought it was interesting at the time that quite literally no one was paying any attention to the fact that universal surveillance had been institutionalized thanks to the abrogation of responsibility by Congress, and it had been going on for years. Supposedly anti-terrorist, the surveillance was obviously in place to protect and defend the Overclass from interference by the Rabble. The obvious proof was in the OWS surveillance revelations that never got a lot of media but which are really quite shocking, especially for the granular level of surveillance of OWS and the coordination of surveillance and suppression by government and corporate interests throughout the land. This indicated that when it comes to perceived threats to the Ruling Class, the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the Constitution are essentially inoperative. And there is a vast ground level surveillance apparat in place, coordinated out of Washington, to ensure that it is so.

And nobody pumping the Scandals!!!! seemed to care. The only thing that mattered to them was that the media was being spied on: OUTRAGEOUS!!!! Except the Public didn't care about that. The Big Media had so little credibility with the public that whether or not reporters were being tailed by gumshoes was utterly irrelevant to most people. The public indifference toward the media's whining about being spied on seemed to come as a shock to the insular Big Media Club. How dare the rabble not care!!!?

Yes, well. That's how it goes when you betray the public's trust over and over and over again, which was how the Big Media had been operating for the entirety of the last decade and more -- at least since the Judicial Coup of 2000, and many would say since well before that, given all the phony Scandals!!!!! the Big Media < cough NYT cough > manufactured and marketed during the Clinton Apocalypse. The Post-Modern Media was as thoroughgoing an embarrassment to the concept of a Free Press as had ever seen the light of day, and that was saying something, considering how appallingly bad media had been in previous eras.

But just as that Scandal!!!!! was dying down thanks to public indifference, the Snowden Thing popped up at the Guardian and it was like manna from heaven to the parched and starving Big Media. Finally! Something to catch and hold the interest of the masses! Hurrah!

And of course what it was about was exactly what the previous failed Scandals!!!!! were not: the universal surveillance of everyone all the time, something that most people can actually relate to, though they may not be particularly opposed to it  -- depending on whether or not people they know are caught up in the Programs.

Yet the Snowden Thing is faltering, partly because of the somewhat bizarre nature of the skip tracing that's (apparently) taking place to apprehend the culprit. Much the same thing happened with Julian Assange, as I was reminded last night when Frontline re-ran their "WikiSecrets" program from 2010. The similarities between the Assange/Manning Thing and the Snowden Thing were remarkable. I was reminded of a lot things, including own my minor involvement in the story. Oh dear, what had I done?

At any rate, in looking back, not only on that but on the HBGary Thing that would come up not long afterwards, I felt the kind of disorientation I sometimes feel when things seem to be entering the Twilight Zone. Or is it Chinatown?

In this case, I'm asking, "Does the United States have a government anymore, or are Our Rulers just winging it?" And if they are, just who are they?

Obama and his Team? Uh, well, that's been debatable from the outset, as we saw when he set out to do certain things, like shut down the Guantanamo Gulag, and immediately he was beset by harpies, led by the contemptible daughter of One Dick Cheney, Ruler Imperial Forever or Something.  Every time she -- or he, now that he has someone else's heart -- opens their piehole, all of Washington, and particularly the White House, trembles. It is obvious as sin that they are, literally, in charge. But on whose behalf?

They -- House Cheney --  are able to publicly order Obama around like a string puppet. It's shocking. Congress is supine in the face of their bluster. WTF? As for the courts, ha. It's not simple corruption with the courts, it's something orders of magnitude worse, for We, the People have neither standing nor influence over issues like law and justice and so forth. At least in a corrupt judicial system, the People have some say, some of them even have some control, and if you know who they are, which you probably do, you at least have a chance.... in the current system, though, the People are kept completely in the dark, it's all a Big Secret.

Is there a government in the sense the public understands the concept of "government" any more? Or has what once was the Government become entirely a matter of certain private interests contending with one another to operate the levers of power on their own -- private -- behalf, either ignoring or exploiting the People in the process?

Is there really any question about it any more?

When I see the devolution of these issues into hatred for one or another of the political actors in the drama -- whether it be Obama or any other -- I shake my head in disgust. Obama and Bush were strolling around Africa together the other day, as if they were old buddies, much as Clinton and Bush stroll around together these days, and what's necessary to see here is that it -- the Presidency at the least and the governing class the Presidency serves is a continuum, not a discreet series of individuals to be hailed or excoriated in turn. Banging on about how wonderful or awful whoever sits on the Throne of Office may be simply gets nowhere. It's a form of venting to be sure, but beyond that, what good is it?

If, as seems to be, government is out of the People's hands altogether, and our public-private-partnership surveillance state fully intends to keep it that way forever and ever, amen, what, then, must we do?

That is the question for which we have no universal answer as yet, though many, many answers are being sought and experimented with. Sometimes the answer is right there in front of us, sometimes it has to be the product of struggle great or small, sometimes there is no answer -- or as is often the case, the answer is "no."

Submission and compliance and required economic extractions are all Our Rulers really want from us in any case.

As long as they believe they have that, we are, of course, free.

The Occupy Surveillance Doc Dump

I've been reading through some of the Occupy Surveillance Doc Dump during the past few days when I get a chance. It's not surprising, and it's not pretty.

What's been released are what look to be some -- by no means all -- the raw field reports from the FBI on their monitoring of OWS and related encampments from prior to the Zuccotti/Liberty encampment until the early spring 2012 break up of remaining Occupy outposts.

There have been plenty of expressions of shock and outrage that Teh Gubmint was actually spying on Occupy back in the day -- as if it wasn't obvious from the get. It was taken for granted that something like COINTELPRO would be launched against the Occupy Movement, and so it would be -- as these and many other documents reveal. Yes, and...?

Raw field reports are not typically very useful for civilians because of their nature. They are "raw," produced in abundance, and not intended as actionable items. They need to be analyzed and put into some kind of coherent form to be useful; further, the noise they contain needs to be suppressed as much as possible.

It's obvious to me at any rate that these documents represent only a fraction of what was produced during the hey-day of Occupy. They skim the surface of what was/is going on regarding the surveillance and eventual suppression of the Occupy Movement. It is the picture of an American Stasi operation, and it's one that most Americans seem to be inured to and to accept.

Those of us involved in Occupy -- even as peripherally as I was -- sensed that this sort of thing was going on, expected it to be, and mostly really did not fear it. As I've written elsewhere, some of the "spies" actually introduced themselves and attempted to make nice with the demonstrators. We knew they were reporting back to some HQ somewhere (police departments and fusion centers), and we expected there would be consequences. Legal tended to assure us that whatever those consequences were, they would be "mild" -- based on assurances Legal seemed to be getting from the Authorities.

On the other hand, there was a lot of paranoia about what could  happen, and these documents provide a clue to the source of the paranoia. Occupy was officially classified as "Domestic Terrorism" and much of the effort to surveil, control and suppress it came from that particular nexus. Occupy was considered to be "Domestic Terrorism" not because it was engaged in any sort of domestic terror activities or armed insurrection of any kind (please), but because its impetus was overtly revolutionary, even if the "revolution" was more of spirit and mind than of physical rebellion and overthrow.

Most of what I've read so far indicates there was little official interest in suppressing Occupy until there were disruptive actions, primarily port shut downs and general strikes. But this image of official indifference doesn't jibe with what was actually happening in the streets, particularly in New York, Oakland, and elsewhere as early as mid September, 2011, soon after the advent of the Occupy Movement. Official efforts at intimidation and police violence against Occupy demonstrators were almost immediate, despite the fact that there was no violence from Occupy.

It didn't matter how non-violent Occupy was in other words. Police suppression, often violent, would become routine, coordinated, destructive, arbitrary and vicious. The whole question of "nonviolence" with regard to Occupy was absurd on its face and a distraction from what was really going on. The brou-ha-ha over the issue (infamously via Chris Hedges' meltdown over Black Block)  highlighted how easily a movement which was nonviolent by definition (regardless of Black Block) could be paralyzed by the fear of violence.

The whole point of the official response, at least from what I gather, was to paralyze the Movement before it could become a serious threat to the existing power structure. The primary weapon would be fear. Fear of violence, whether internal or external. There were plenty of willing tools within and outside the Movement who were more than capable of spreading dissension, fear, uncertainty and doubt, and the periodic application of police violence on top of it was sufficient to paralyze and eventually disperse the Movement -- to the extent that now it hardly seems to exist any more.

The strategy may have been ad hoc, but it worked. On the surface, at least, it worked.

Interestingly, there are a number of documents in the dump that indicate what looks to be official sympathy with the Movement and its aims and goals -- such as they were. One, starting on page 90, goes to great length stating the Movement's interests objections and principles as if they were perfectly legitimate in the eyes of Authority. Another, beginning on page 88, deals with "protester safety" and "first amendment rights." Of course given events, much of this is probably eyewash, but nevertheless, it's surprising how comprehensive and apparently sympathetic some of the official interest was.

Possible assassination of Occupy leaders has received a good deal of attention, thanks to some documents out of Charlotte and Jacksonville (regarding Houston) (pg 61 and 68-69) that indicate someone had a bright idea to deploy snipers against protesters. Exactly who that might have been is impossible to determine from what's been released, but the implication is or was that there was some sort of official interest in exploring/exploiting the "assassination" option. The documents themselves are murky on this issue (deliberately so, given the redactions) but it's not surprising that "assassination" might be factored in as a tool of suppression.

If the official view is or was that Occupy is or was a Domestic Terrorist operation, then any tool to suppress it could be and no doubt was considered. Again, this is not terribly surprising... and there is no way to tell from the documents who was considering deploying snipers in Houston (and elsewhere?) to take out Occupy "leaders." Some of those who have taken a look at this part of the doc dump suspect its release is strategic, in an effort to maintain an atmosphere of fear and dread at what could happen should Occupy return to public prominence. Yes, well...

Yves Smith highlights how intimately banks were involved in the official surveillance and suppression actions against Occupy. Again, there's no real surprise here, but merely confirmation.

Naomi Wolf gets into some of the real sophistication of the surveillance and suppression actions.

As I've said many times, we live in an increasingly regimented and restrictive police state. There's still a lot of denial about that fact, much of it within what passes for the "progressive" community, in part based on the premise that "it's not as bad" as the Soviet or Nazi examples -- not yet. But I would go somewhat further and say that in the physical sense it's not as bad as it used to be in this country. Instead, Our Rulers learned many lessons from previous Movements and the often failed efforts to suppress them. They don't intend to let any Movement ever again overcome their authority and rule. Period.

This Is Kinda Fun... As These Things Go

Agenda 21 Full Video from Bryan Long on Vimeo.

Yes, well.

There's actually some more or less accurate information in the video within the video; I'll let the viewer figure out what it is. There are most definitely Things Going On that either the public is not privy to at all (a whole bunch of that stuff), or Things which are sold to the public using what amounts to false advertising. In other words, Things are not necessarily what they appear to be, and their upshot may be quite different than we are led to believe.

Government uses falsehoods frequently to help lull and control the People. This is nothing new, it's been going on for as long as there has been government, and it is by no means a peculiarity of the Modern American Government. Falsehood is built in to the institutional framework of government as we know it. It's not necessarily a bad thing. But I wouldn't call it good.

Tactics and techniques of mass control are pretty much constant in the haute monde of both the public and private sectors, and as we descend further and further into our Neo-Fascist Future, the interchange between the sectors essentially fuses them into a unity. They use each others' techniques freely, and for an identical purpose: control.

What is striking about this presentation is that it is offered as if it were "secret knowledge" -- much like the inner workings of the Mormon Temple to use one recent similar example -- when it's not really "secret" at all.

To state the obvious: The everyday world the public experiences doesn't operate the way the inner working of government does, but the way the government works is not especially hidden from view. Almost any interaction with the government will demonstrate how it works.

What's interesting to me is the how the ordinary operations of government can be so easily interpreted and sold as some vast conspiracy or other, much as is done in the video-within-the-video above and was done in a kind of baroque excess during the Clinton Era. There are conspiracies to be sure. And some of what the government and private sectors plan and do is not in the public interest by any means. Many people would say that most of what the government does is not in the public interest while giving the private sector a pass, and that's simply absurd; the twain have plighted their troth in a manner of speaking, and there is no way to separate their plans and actions from one another -- quite unlike the situation between the People and Government.

I've written many times that the United States Government has essentially divorced itself from the People and there is no longer much or in many cases any institutional necessity to include the People's Will or the Public Interest in the institutional framework of Government. This is true of many smaller jurisdictions as well. The United States Government -- like other governments around the world and at home -- serves the needs and interests of a select (and diminishing) minority of keyed-in and hyper-wealthy individuals and interests almost exclusively. The People are an impediment at times; most times they are simply irrelevant to the needs and interests of the power elites.

The surprise is that this state of affairs still comes as a surprise to many people.

It shouldn't.

In the meantime, the fantasy that is spun in the video above is really something to behold. The Truth might actually be scarier, though. So when these things appear, I generally take them to be the product  of an elite faction that wishes to press its own case in opposition to whatever is currently going on, and wishes to sell a load of crap to the public in the process in an effort to sway public opinion its own way.

Wheels within wheels...

[Speaking of: We had a series of truly remarkable adventures on Friday, starting with the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, thence to the Very Large Array at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, thence back to the Refuge for the Arrival of the Cranes, thence to New Mexico Tech to hang out at their Observatories. I've drafted some stuff about it, but it may be a while before I post anything. Still working on the pictures....;-)]

Railing Against the "Left" in America

At some point I will have to acknowledge the uselessness of continuing to beat the long dead horse of what passes for the "left" in American politics.

In point of fact, there is no real Left active in the American political system and there hasn't been one for many years. There are a few (very) fringe parties that take leftist, even revolutionary, positions on some issues, but they have no political influence at all -- some would say by the design and intention of the political system itself and by these fringe parties in cahoots with their own marginalization. They do seem to be oddly content outside the system, come to think of it.

In the mainstream of American politics, what's called the "left" functions as a slightly mitigating version of the ever-dominant American Right. I've pointed out that even St. Franklin Roosevelt was no "leftist," and the New Deal programs and policies that actually survived (like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance) are NOT leftist by any stretch of the imagination. They are basically survivalist policies of the Right intended to buy off the masses and keep the tumbrils and guillotines at bay for a while longer.

Now, however, since the Crash of 2008, the Right is going for complete control without the troublesome and burdensome necessity of carving out some benefit for the masses. They've been busying themselves with taking economic benefits as well as civil liberties away from the masses, selling off public assets at fire sale prices, destroying public education, reducing and/or eliminating pension benefits, making access to health care ever more difficult and expensive and setting up system after system of automatic revenue payments to corporate entities, many of which are now behaving like taxing authorities and private governments.

The so-called "left" in American politics and governance merely operates as if it were a helpful critic of Rightist policies. The "left" has no policies of its own except maintaining bits and pieces of the status quo and delaying and mitigating (somewhat) the more radical policies of the Right.

That's it. At one time, when there was something of an active Left in American politics, instead of reducing benefits and raising retirement ages, we would have been treated to arguments proposing to lower the retirement age and substantially increasing benefits. We would hear arguments to collectivize, nationalize industries and services and implement a broad-based public sector economy on democratic principles. Instead of ignoring Marx and other cogent critics of capitalism, we would have long ago explored and demonstrated alternatives to the kind of rampant crony capitalism we endure today -- a capitalist system that is depriving whole generations of a future.

If we had a real Left in our politics, the possibilities for the Future would be seen as unlimited.

But we don't have one. No, Occupy is not "the Left," not even close; it's not at root a political entity; it's more of a philosophical one. It may give rise to a political entity, but it hasn't yet. It has only given rise to ideas, opportunities, and demonstrations of alternatives to the current downward spiral.

The election will only have an effect on how fast and how harshly Rightist programs and policies -- most of which we are already familiar with -- will be implemented going forward. Neither major party is in any way interested in backing off from those Rightist programs and policies, any more than most of the governments around the world are going to suddenly jettison neoliberalism. It's not going to happen.

The only way to accomplish that end now is through efforts conducted outside the standard political system, and we've already seen that if those efforts show signs of succeeding, they will be violently shut down by the corpro-government.

If a genuine political Left is ever revived on the other hand, what might we see? What wonders might await?

A rational argument for not voting. [Note: a repost of the material at the link was disappeared at FDL because a moderator didn't want to "promote" the idea of not voting. It is obviously considered a dangerous concept that must be kept away from the masses.]

Delusional

The current imbroglio over the ACA has once again thrust the radical, reactionary, lawless Supreme Court majority into the spotlight it so loves.

I'm fairly certain that the Court majority will let stand most if not all of the ACA legislation simply because it assures so much money to the Court majority's corporate masters. Whatever gives them what they want is what the Court majority approves, viz the Montana decision.

But if they overturn the whole thing -- which they will do if they are told to do so by their corporate masters -- the idea that the re-election of Obama will somehow lead to the overturning of the Court majority and its replacement with a liberal/progressive majority is delusional.

And yet I'm hearing it more and more stridently as the consequences of the current Court's majority decisions on behalf of their neo-liberal/neo-conservative and lawless ideology sink in.

Those consequences are dire. The delusion, however, is that Obama will somehow intervene and transform the Court. His two appointments to date demonstrate he has no intention of doing so, even if he had the power, which he does not.

The Court's lawless, extreme and thoroughly disreputable majority was essentially enshrined for the next 50 years with the appointments to the Court made by George W. Bush -- with the complicity of the Senate Democrats, let it not be forgotten. They knew what they were doing, Harriet Myers notwithstanding. Those appointments ensured that the Court's chief justice and majority would be "stabilized" as is for decades to come. That the was point, after all.

Democrats went along with it. As has been noticed from more than one observational post, many nominal Democrats are on board with the neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda and ideology no matter what they say to get elected.

So even if by some miracle (reliance on which is itself delusional) Obama is re-elected, and all the Court's "conservative" majority resigns or dies, he's still not going to appoint, nor will the Senate confirm, a "liberal/progressive" Court majority.

Nothing short of revolution will achieve that in our lifetimes. In other words, it's not going to happen through presidential and congressional elections. It's delusional to think it will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Court upholds ACA in its entirety. The Rightists will of course experience exploding heads, but it will all be for show. The real deal is of course that their corporate paymasters love-love-love the mandate and all the money that will now be forthcoming.

Still we need comprehensive, affordable, and universal health care coverage, and as importantly, we need universal access to healthcare. The other factor of the ACA that corporatists love-love-love is that while payment is required, access is not.

Brilliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT!!!

A counter argument arises: Roberts sided with the "liberals" to uphold the ACA; the "conservatives" all denounced it, including Kennedy.

Then I ask you: if this ruling represents a "liberal" victory, what does it say about the "liberal" minority on the court that staunch corporatist Roberts sided with them?

Why of course: it says that the "liberals" on the Court are just as corporatist as the "conservatives."

In Mussolini's day, this was the definition of Fascism.

So Why Do People Vote Against Their Own Best Interests?

I would argue that from their perspective they've done no such thing.

Their perspective may be wrong to be sure. But they don't know that at the time. Most often, they can't know it.

It's a matter of social and cultural conditioning, of propaganda, of deep seated fears, of threats and imprecations, of promised rewards and of an inner need to do what is right for oneself and one's posterity. All normal stimuli and responses under the circumstances.

And yet responding normally is somehow wrong? Since the result of the action can't be known in advance, it's hard to see where it is wrong for a People to vote in the way they think is appropriate under their circumstances at the time -- and hope for the best.

As we see in Greece, the issues are not clear cut in the eyes of the People; they continue to evince tepid support for a standard model rightist solution to their existential crisis, but they are trending more and more to the Left, with strong showings by the Left coalition and the even-further Left, ie: the Communists.

The odd-man-out is the Socialist Party (ΠΑΣΟΚ) which can't seem to win for losing. But then, selling out tends to have that effect.

Meanwhile in France the Socialists gained a clear majority in the National Assembly and so Hollande has a mandate going forward. Into what is the question. France and Germany appear to be on a collision course with regard to the proper treatment of the Periphery. But then, are they? Really? Frau Merkel seems quite capable of steamrolling and stonewalling to get her way until the very last minute -- or as they say the last dog dies. She seems to be modeling herself after Baroness Thatcher in her dealings with the fringes of Europe, and she's getting away with it. On the other hand, Hollande is a blank slate; the Socialist platform may be one thing and his perspective something else. Since Socialists and Social Democrats all over Europe have been more than willing to sell their People out for the promise of reward under the New World Order or what have you, I wouldn't put much faith in the Elysee Palace's ability to sway Berlin from its current path of domination, exploitation and ruin for all who don't pay appropriate tribute.

The economic policies out of Berlin and Brussels are insane on their merits, but they're typical of the predominate neo-liberal economics out of all the highest institutions in the world these days. Banksters rule with an iron fist, and they will fuck up whole nations that don't go along with them pronto and fully.

Frau Merkel, Mme Legarde and Signore Draghi all pull the wagon for the Banksters. Legarde and Draghi ARE Banksters; Merkel's service unto them and unto the Berlin Banksters in defiance of common sense and decency (let alone basic macro economics) is -- or would be -- inexplicable, but for the fact that she says the German Volk are behind her (as her party loses election after election in the German States.)

And we may at some point to ask how exactly it came to be that the Banksters were allowed to overwhelm common sense and a decent regard for mankind in their pursuit of obscene profits based on... nothing. What happened to enable this triumph of greed, parsimony and stupidity?

And what, exactly, are the People to do under the circumstances?

In Europe, it appears that the People have recognized that they are essentially unable to affect the policy decisions of their governments, no matter who they elect. So, if I'm reading the situation correctly, when they seem to be "voting against their own interests" by voting unenthusiastically for a more rightist government, they may not actually be voting against their own interests at all. They may instead be acknowledging that they aren't going to get anywhere with any of the parties or their alternatives: the situation will stay the same or worsen no matter what party is in charge of the government because the government itself is a captured entity which the People cannot affect significantly from the inside.

The only real effect will come from the outside.

I may be projecting a great deal here, following my own twisted insights about these things, but maybe not. It may well be that people who seem to be voting against their own interests are dupes and fools; but it is quite as possible that they are making a strategic decision.

Watch what happens in Egypt as their Revolution is systematically undermined through legal and electoral shenanigans. Somehow, two weeks of agitation and occupation hasn't quite turned into the New Day the Revolutionaries thought it would. And after what the Egyptians have been going thorough since their "success" in overthrowing the Regime (oh yeah?) ,  the Arab Spring may not have been all it was cracked up to be.  A year later, it's looking to get even grimmer. And in Egypt, please note, the electoral process and candidate selection is as hamstrung as that of Iraq.

There is no way for the public interest and popular will to be appropriately acknowledged and expressed through these convoluted and highly managed electoral systems. While it is obvious in the case of the New Arab electoral situation -- elections are actually freer and produce a more representative outcome in Iran -- the shock of it is stronger because of the innocence and naivete of the electorate.

In sophisticated Europe, there is much less expectation that government will actually reflect the People's Will.

And here? Quien sabe? I think people are realizing -- if they hadn't already recognized it --  that elections are not the way toward significant policy changes. It simply won't happen -- because it can't.

How it will fall out, I don't know. We are in a Revolutionary Era, one unlike any I can point to in history because of its nearly universal aspect at the popular level, the nearly complete divorce between Peoples and their governments, and the extraordinarily widespread efforts of individuals and groups to engineer change from the ground up, without deference or reference to the ruling elites.

This is something different than Revolutions of the past.

There is a long way yet to go, but I suspect when the final act plays out, it will be quick. We'll see.

"The Riot" -- or How Propaganda is Done

You may have heard that there was a "riot" in Sacramento on Monday as Occupy Oakland "attacked" other demonstrators and police at the California State Capitol, "injuring" at least two officers and resulting in the arrest of at least three "black clad and bandana wearing anarchists from Oakland."

You may or may not have heard that the other demonstrators were a white supremacist group from Oakland who had a permitted event to publicize what they claimed was the "genocide" of white people in South Africa and that the Occupy Oakland group had come to Sacramento specifically to oppose their demonstration.

You more than likely heard nothing of the fact that the opposition to this white supremacist demonstration at the Capitol was composed of a number of autonomous affinity groups, and that the "riot" actually consisted of hurling mutual anathemas and epithets at one another, and that the officers who were injured apparently injured themselves -- one tackling an unidentified protestor, and one by other means unknown (you have probably heard the claim that he was maced or pepper sprayed, but if so, it wasn't by anyone in the crowd.)

You may have heard that objects such as cans, bottles, rocks and "paint filled eggs" were thrown at the police, but you probably have not heard that perhaps nothing except one paint-filled plastic baggie was actually thrown at the police, and that as a means of marking the officer as one who committed assault on demonstrators. (This tactic was also used in Oakland during some of the confrontations with police on October 25 -- after the violent eviction from Ogawa/Grant Plaza but before the wounding of Scott Olsen.)

You may or may not know that most or all of the reports about what happened that have appeared in the press and mainstream media to date were filed by people who were not there and have no first-hand knowledge. Their second and third-hand knowledge comes from interviews and statements almost exclusively from Sacramento police, California State Highway Patrol, and a very limited number of witnesses.

You also may or may not know that almost all the stories that have been filed to date about the "#F27" events at the California State Capitol have been massaged to fit a "riot" narrative heavily featuring the (scary) Occupy Oakland contingent of "black bloc anarchists" in order to frighten the bejeebers out of the old people and the horses.

This is how propaganda is done. It can be highly effective.

Note: I wasn't there, didn't even know there was going to be a "riot" to attend. I found out about it through police channels well after the events of the day. The police were calling it a "riot Downtown" and advising people to stay out of the area from very early on in the confrontation according to the reports I heard (second-hand t0 be sure.) These reports were -- so far as I was able to discern -- at least half in jest. Much was made by the police of the presence of a contingent from Occupy Oakland. The entire protest was alleged to be an "Occupy Oakland" protest, but it was not.

A point can and should be made that the police in California -- and the 1% they serve -- are terrified of the militancy of Occupy Oakland; not their "violence, " for they are not violent in any rational sense. They stand their ground in other words, and by doing so, they are examples for other Occupys. Standing ground is one of the most effective means of delegitimizing Authority.

In addition to police sources (at least second hand), I also found first hand sources on the ground, whose reports, though not perfect, at least came from within the events themselves in real time. Something that "the Media" seems incapable of doing any more, whether by intention or neglect, we'll leave it to the reader to decide.

These reports paint a very different picture of what happened -- and more to the point, why they happened.

There was a small (permitted) demonstration at the Capitol on Monday sponsored by an outfit calling itself "The South Africa Project" -- which is apparently a rather notorious white supremacist affinity group (widely scattered throughout the country) which focuses on the "genocide" of whites by blacks in South Africa. These sorts of claims of whites being mindlessly slaughtered by gibbering blacks and other Natives of course has a long and miserable history in this country and throughout the Euro centers of the Universe. There are always gibbering Natives slaughtering Peaceful and Civilized White Folk somewhere; it's just the way things are. It's a wonder there are any White Folk left. /snark

There was an unpermitted demonstration against "The South Africa Project" at the Capitol that involved at least 100 and perhaps more protestors including contingents from Oakland and elsewhere in the Bay Area as well as locations in the Central Valley. (California geography lesson: Oakland is about 80 miles west of Sacramento; Sacramento is near the center of California's Central Valley which extends approximately 400 miles north to south and is between 50 and 100 miles wide. The Central Valley is flat land, mostly orchard, farm, and ranch land, though heavily suburbanized during the run up to the Crash of 2007-8, that is often referred to as "The Other California" as it is quite a different sort of place than California's coastal and mountain enclaves. Many of those who live in the coastal areas have only the vaguest notions about the Central Valley, mostly contemptuous, but that's another essay for another time.)

In other words, the counter-demonstration against The South Africa Project's demonstration was by no means an "Occupy Oakland" event. It was an Anti-Fascist event that included people from many parts of California, including Oakland.

Some of them wore black and carried black flags. Eek. Anarchists! Black Bloc! Run for your lives children, we're all going to dieeeeee! Demonization of the Other is one of the primary tactics of propagandists, no matter what interests they serve, and in this particularly instance the propaganda of demonization was heavy on all sides.

Demonization, dehumanization and scapegoating go on so often, many people don't notice when it's happening. In this case, the "Nazis" -- and the police who were protecting them -- were being demonized by the crowd of protesters who had come from the Bay Area and the Central Valley (interestingly, Occupy Sacramento was not involved in this Direct Action) to protest them. The kaffir Natives of South Africa were being demonized by the "Nazis" for killing whites. The media was demonizing "Occupy Oakland" and the "black-clad anarchists" for "causing a riot." And so on.

In addition, there was an excess of process during the day's events. The "Nazis" were allowed onto the Capitol grounds on Monday because they had a permit. The demonstrators who came from the Bay Area and the Central Valley to protest them were not allowed on the Capitol grounds because they did not have a permit, and they were held at bay by a heavy state and local police presence, some of it on horseback. Certain members of the independent media were not allowed on the Capitol grounds while others were, depending -- it seemed -- on skin color and (shall we say) how "polite they were." Later, only media with big honking cameras were allowed to record close ups of those who were arrested after the rallies broke up.

The police were solicitous and very protective of the "Nazis," escorting them from the Capitol grounds when their rally was done, and protecting them from the objects thrown from the crowd of protestors. Who actually threw the objects and what they actually were is not entirely clear. The videos I posted above do not show the objects themselves; one of them doesn't even show the "riot" itself. The one that does show the incident that has been called a "riot" also shows that it lasted approximately 5 seconds. It shows police chasing and running down demonstrators who supposedly threw things at the "Nazis" but there is some question of whether they were actually the ones who did so. One mounted officer is heard to exclaim that his target for arrest has just committed a felony. The man runs and is tackled by a rather portly officer who is then hauled away in an ambulance because he seems to have bloodied his chin in the tackle.

It's all supposedly being done "by the book," though it does seem the police actions are somewhat laid back -- as they often tend to be in Sacramento in connection with Occupy. Certain rituals have been adopted that maintain a rather formal and polite, sometimes even humorous, relationship between Occupy Sacramento and the local gendarmerie. The "black-clad anarchists" from the Bay Area and the Central Valley are another kettle of fish altogether. They were far louder and far ruder toward the police than the police are used to in Sacramento, and it was obviously disconcerting to them. Nevertheless, I'm sure that they had been warned of what to expect from the Occupy Oakland people -- who inspire such fear all across the nation.

Whether any of them actually threw anything at anyone (apart from insults and a baggie filled with paint) is a matter of dispute. As we know, infiltrators are legion in the ranks of Occupy -- why every other Black Bloc is all police infiltrators, aren't they? Or maybe not. It's so difficult to say anymore. The question of who is actually throwing things at any given time, and what their affiliation is, never really gets explored, and it should be. I think there might be some surprises.

There was no riot in Sacramento on Monday; this is the third or fourth time I have seen reports of "riots" in connection with Occupy that were no such thing. You would think that people would be able to discern the fact that something like loud voices and one or two thrown objects and a handful of arrests do not a "riot" make. But propaganda is powerful. And if the propaganda media says it's a "riot," many will uncritically believe it to be so.

It's literally taken me this long -- since Monday evening -- to pore through the "news" and the other material available to piece together something like a factual understanding of what happened based on evidence as opposed to hearsay and hysteria. Propagandists know that most people can't do that, and they aren't inclined to do so anyway. So propagandists can often get away with saying whatever they want. On the other hand, they can't get away with it forever.

How long will it take for average Americans to understand they are being lied to? Something tells me they already know it.

Greece

The video is of Greek factions fighting it out in the streets of Athens last week.

The news of the Prime Minister's decision to put the latest EuroZone extortion plan to a vote of the Greek People has sent shock waves through world markets.

"OH NO!!! YOU CAN'T DO THIS!!!!"

Well, of course not. You do not put matters like this to a vote of the people. It's just not done.

Except they did it in Iceland, twice, and the People said a resounding "NO!" to the terms the Banksters set, Iceland defaulted on the debt, and the investors in Britain and the Netherlands are still fuming about it. Iceland seems to be fine. There were no dire repercussions, and for what it's worth, Iceland can still borrow whatever it needs to to stay financially afloat.

Hm.

Someone has to break the thrall of the Banksters over governments around the world, and if that job falls to the Greeks, then Hurrah!

Of course they may not get to the point of a referendum before... Papandreou's government falls, there's an invasion (led by the British, of course, they know how to do these things), and the Parthenon is sold for scrap lime.

In a sense, it doesn't matter. If the spell is broken, liberation is nigh.

ΖΗΤΩ ΟΙ Έλληνες! (Or something. I used Google Translate, and something tells me that is not how you say "Long live the Greeks!" in Greek.)

Statistics and Stories

Arrest in Nashville




Denver Police Action -- suspected provocateurs spotted as well... hmm.


Sam Seder Explains It All For You -- Re: Albany, NY

I've been idly working on another statistical snapshot of the Occupy Movement, this time concentrating on Capital cities and the contrasts in how the Authorties have been dealing with the demonstrations and occupations.

Albany, NY, is of course the stand out model, where the local police department essentially refused direct orders from on high to arrest the rabble and clear them from the Capitol grounds. The police said No, they had many more important things to do.

To be blunt, this is what has to happen. The police have discretion, everywhere, in their enforcement of the Law, and it is quite possible for them to use that discretion to say, "No, we won't arrest them, this is a waste of our time."

Denver, CO on the other hand, has witnessed repeated episodes of clearance and return, and at least one episode of police pepper spraying, tear gassing, and firing of "rubber bullets" on the crowd. ("Rubber bullets" in quotes because they are projectiles related to paintballs, fired from paintball guns, rather than actual rubber coated bullets fired from regular rifles.) There have been several dozen arrests over the period of the confrontations.

Richmond, VA's Occupation had a Visitation from its mayor that felt -- at least in the video I saw -- not unlike the Visitation in Sacramento by KJ, the upshot being that He, in His Majesty, would treat with the "leaders" of the Occupation, in Dialogue, to See What Could Be Done.

Of course, days later, the camp was cleared with a bulldozer. So it goes. I don't know about arrests yet.

Santa Fe, NM's Occupation, on the other hand, has been given a chunk of park land in the Railroad District where they may stay indefinitely with the encouragement and support of the City.

Of course, this has led to jealousy in Albuquerque where the Occupation was evicted from the UNM campus the other night, without much ceremony, but with several dozen arrests, and the protest demonstration that followed the clearance of Camp Coyote was met with considerable force by the police -- who used tear gas to break it up. Some wag pointed out that Santa Fe's Occupation was getting away with it because they can afford lawyers to fight the matter in court. UPDATE: UNM has just re-issued a permit for (Un)Occupy Albuquerque's stay on campus.

Austin, TX has had quite an up and down ride with its Occupation of City Hall's brutalist concrete exterior. The other day, 38 Occupy Austin participants were arrested for... something. Being there, essentially, and not being polite about it. They had set up tables in the City Hall forecourt for food and information, an action they believed was permitted. Police arrived in force and took down the tables; this caused a loud verbal reaction by the Occupiers which in turn led to numerous arrests for disorderly conduct. There have been many incidents of harassment by the Austin authorities during the period of the Occupation, from insisting that the site must be power-washed every night, to prohibitions on this, that, or the other necessary accessory to the Occupation.

Nashville, TN's Occupation was cleared from Legislative Plaza one night, by order of the City, for all the usual "sanitation" reasons, with dozens of arrests, destruction of the camp, yadda, yadda, and until a local judge intervened, all seemed lost. Behold, he ordered a halt to the arrests and that the camp be restored. Who'd a thunk. But the arrests have continued.

Atlanta, GA's Occupation was cleared from a downtown park with many arrests and has regrouped indoors temporarily. Occupy Atlanta announced its intention to reclaim Troy Davis Park on November 5.

Sacramento, CA's crack legal team is supposed to file a suit in Federal court to stop the arrests today (Tuesday), but we'll see. Press conference scheduled at 10am at the Federal Courthouse.

Des Moines, IA's Occupation was cleared, with dozens of arrests, weeks ago now. The Occupation resumed and it is now being subjected to the usual idiotic harassment.

These are just the ones I've been able to follow to date; there are many others of interest, and I'll be trying to collect information on all the Occupations in Capital Cities.

Meanwhile, some stories of being arrested and incarcerated for 'being there' have begun to emerge. I'm surprised there aren't more of them, though. I've heard some brief comments by people who have been arrested here that they have experienced and witnessed things at the jail that have been eye-opening and horrifying, including incidents of arbitrary, unprovoked violence and brutality by the deputies.

But they haven't testified.

This surprises me.

This story, from one of the women who was arrested at the CitiBank branch in New York on October 15 is unusually graphic. It's well worth a read.

A key graph:

During an inordinately lengthy fingerprinting procedure, with the male officers operating the machines and the female officers locking and unlocking our cells as we were called out one by one, it sometimes seemed the police outnumbered us. But still, it took what seemed like hours.

Barely back in our cells, we were taken out again, handcuffed again, this time with a chain between our cuffs, and led “upstairs.” But there had been some mistake. A female officer told "our" officer that, no, she couldn’t process us. Some paperwork was missing, some order, some stamp. Time to cuff us again and go down the stairs back into our cells. How many more instances of handcuffing, uncuffing, leading us up and down stairs and long hallways, waiting, returning, repeating what seemed nonsensical procedures and reversals then followed I do not know and did not count. But a deep sense of disorganization, competence fighting incompetence, if not chaos, reigned. It seemed as if, in the name of bureaucratic rules and regulations, in the name of "security," we were witnessing a dysfunctional institution and people not used to daylight shining in; people generally accountable to no one but themselves.

It's not just a waste of time and money, it's stupid.

Mind-bogglingly stupid. And if this level of official stupidity is applied to peaceful protestors, just think what it is like for someone criminally arrested.

Governing Contrary

"Meddy, Meddy, quieet contreddy, houw des uer gahdden gdreuw?

In all the hysteria over the Debt Crisis Crisis and the Deal, one thing is startlingly clear: Washington is so divorced from We, the People that it is institutionally incapable of addressing or even acknowledging the People's Will or the Public Interest -- except inversely.

The fashion is to govern exactly contrary to the People's Will and the Public Interest, and at this point in history, there is no way for governments in the United States or pretty much anywhere in the developed West to do otherwise.

This fashion for governing contrary to the People's Will and the Public Interest seemed to get going in earnest during the premiership of Maggie Thatcher in Britain, and it then became the style of the Reagan Administration in Washington (of course he'd done it to a certain extent previously as Governor of California, but it was actually somewhat subtle and much more deceptive than the Thatcher way. That's another discussion altogether, though.) By degrees, Governing Contrary became the operating theory of government throughout the West: whatever the People wanted or the Public Good needed, Government would do the opposite -- because that's what would inevitably enhance the wealth and power of the favored few.

And so it has been, relentlessly, for decades, so much so that many people have come to accept it as natural.

Since they've known nothing else their entire lives, why wouldn't they?

"Government is the problem, not the solution." And if the Government looks like it might be the Solution, then make it the Problem. Simple.

Make most people distrust government instinctively; make it harder and harder for them to participate in democracy; falsify "democracy" through media; make more and more ridiculous rules; make much more draconian punishments for more and more intrusive and incomprehensible laws; set trade policies that destroy industry and jobs at home; "liberate" the economy so that one bubble after another can be inflated and then deflated, thus providing the periodic illusion of "opportunity" for the masses, while ensuring that each time the bubble deflates, the proles are pillaged more comprehensively for the benefit of the Overclass; conduct wars of aggression overseas, institute an aggressive security apparat at home; put everything on credit.

This is what governments in the West have been doing for decades, led by the examples in the United States and Britain, under both Democratic (Labour) and Republican (Tory) administrations, one of which might be slightly less harsh in its Contrariness than the other, but both of which operate on the same principle of Governing Contrary to the People's Will and the Public Interest.

Nothing at all seems to move them from their course, and one catastrophe after another is simply an excuse to increase the level of Governing Contrariness.

So what do you do about it?

So far, nothing tried has even come close to working. No public argument, tumult, uprising or revolution has managed to alter the course of governments obsessed with operating contrary to the People's Will and the Public Interest anywhere... except, perhaps, to an extent in Latin America for a brief period after the horrors of the Reactionary/Fascist Period and its numerous civil wars wound down.

If we really want to overcome the fashion of Governing Contrary, it might help to understand what gave rise to it in the first place, and why it was adopted by both "liberal" and "conservative" governments throughout the West almost without exception as the General Rule of Government.

That will require a whole other exploration.

Screed of the Day

Just read this. It is Scott Creighton's latest anti-bankster/gov't collusionist screed over at American Everyman, and it's a winner.

Excerpt:

This was, and is, a crime against humanity and none of this would have been possible if government was not working in direct opposition to the best interest of the people of this country. None of it. And both parties are culpable.

Without the destruction of the protections of the Glass-Steagall Act, or the Banking Act of 1933 none of this would have happened. Part of the Roosevelt’s New Deal program, this Glass-Steagall separated commercial and investment banking institutions. This kept Wall Street firms from becoming “Too Big Too Fail” and from betting on the demise of the liar loans they created. Glass-Steagall was destroyed by the previous administration, the Clinton administration, just prior to their leaving office, setting up what would come later under Bush. They also made it illegal to regulate the very derivatives that would end up fueling this latest great depression. When one looks at it clearly one can see that both parties, working in near perfect synchronicity, conspired with the banks to defraud the people of this country and to cripple the economy in such a way that now they are able to pass certain reforms which would have been unthinkable in 1999.

They (the banks and financial institutions) made money on this plot of theirs in every conceivable way and they continue to this day to profit immensely from their scheme.

Not only did they profit from the government programs designed to help unqualified buyers with their down payments, but the profited from the payments made, from the bundling of the loans, from betting against the loans when they were doomed to fail, from the eventual foreclosures and resale of the property, and then from the bailouts and backdoor bailouts as well.

I'll say. Paine ain't go nothin' on Creighton.

Hating On Teh Government; aka "I'd Rather Have Republicans Screw Me Than Let Spineless Democrats Do It!"

Yes. Well.

There's a point at which this conventional (online) attitude of denouncing government -- no matter who is on the Throne -- and vowing Never to Vote for a Democrat Again (!!!!1™) becomes timesome and old.

Yes, yes, yes. We know. Teh Government -- All Knowing, All Pervasive, All Powerful -- is Teh Evul!!!!1™ and Must Be Killed!!!!1™ and Democrats are Tasteless Jello!!!!1® Ptooie! I vow to only vote for Republicans ever again for as long as I live so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster, Amen!

Yes. Of course some of us have long realized that these incessant "I will NEVER vote for Democrats again! Obomba is Dead To Me! It's time to vote for a Straight Republican Ticket from here on out!" statements that fill the so-called "Progressive" blovosphere© from morning till night, 24/7, are largely the "work" -- well, everybody needs a job -- of Republican and their handmaiden Libertarian operatives who infest the Intertubes like lice. They are secreted everywhere.

The ones who scream the loudest when poked -- "My, that's an interesting Republican meme you're spreading here in this fine 'progressive' forum!" "No I'm NOT! How DARE you! I'm just an EVERYDAY ORDINARY FRUSTRATED Democrat! Ché? Ché? You're a Communist! Shut up!" -- are surely political operatives, but the point of their "work" is to subliminally convince random dissatisfied Democrats that the Answer to their Frustration is to be found in Voting Republican(!!1™) maybe for the first time in their lives. As if that will fix anything.

It won't. And most Democrats don't fall for it, but some do, always, and the hope of these operatives is that in the end, enough will be "persuaded" to vote for the Rs that Victory is Assured. It sometimes works.

But of course putting the Rs in charge is still insane. It is not the Answer, it solves nothing, and all the High and Mighty Principles that are said to guide the Republicans (when God is otherwise occupied) turn out to be ruinous for Ordinary People at home and abroad. Yes, well. We should all know that by now.

Dems are marginally less ruinous for Ordinary People, typically they far less insane, and despite the proliferation of Imperial Wars of Aggression under Obama, they are somewhat less bloodthirsty and cruel. For our purposes, that's about as good as it is gonna get.

The problem is the nature of Government under our political and electoral system.

And that is what cannot and will not be addressed through electoral politics.

Our Constitution is the Original Sin of the State, deeply and fundamentally flawed from the outset, and now, in the modern world, horribly anachronistic, like something out of the 18th Century (well...) that cannot and does not provide for genuine representative government that recognizes and addresses the needs of the People and the Public Interest.

The Government that is built upon that Constitutional origin is the natural result of the flaws inherent in the origin of the State. It's that simple. You can adjust it here and there by putting this or that politician or political party in office, but that cannot and does not change the fundamental nature of the Government that has grown out of the original document.

Our Founders and the Founding Documents they came up with simply don't provide for the requirements of a Modern post-industrial people; the State created at the outset is an encrusted burden on the lowly, while protecting (as it always has) favored constituencies of the well-connected, wealthy and influential. "Constitutionalists" by and large understand that full well, and they like it just fine. They are eager to protect the already protected and exploit the rest of us. That's just how it goes.

Change in Government -- positive change than so many claim to want -- can only come through dealing with the foundations and the nature of the Government. Which means, simply, revolution.

A while back, I made something of a study of the Progressive Era -- which long has been touted as a "fundamental" change in Government in this country. What I found was that Progressivism was primarily an elite means and method of diverting and eventually destroying the Populist Movements of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries -- which were themselves reactions against the horrifying conditions under which most Americans were forced to live by the Plutocrats and Oligarchs who owned and controlled everything worth having and ruled with an iron and often bloody fist through their agents in the bought and paid for Government. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

In other words, the Progressive Revolution was an elite means of putting down a Populist Revolution which came close to sweeping all before it. Populism has been suppressed ever since (we can argue its merits another time).

Progressivism is not Revolutionary at all; it is by nature High Church Conservative, often quite Puritanical and prudish, authoritarian, elitist, and contemptuous of The People. Initially, it was thoroughly racist as well. Once instituted (first in the South, interestingly enough) it became the Standard Operating System of governments throughout the land, and as an Operating System, Progressivism survived until the Reagan Revolution overthrew it, replacing Progressivism with the thoroughly corrupt and reactionary throwback operations of Government we know and loathe today.

Today's "progressives" are far more Libertarian than their namesakes and forebears, but their elitism, Puritanism, and innate authoritarianism is much the same. The great irony of Libertarianism is its overweening imposition of Authority by "private" means, enabled and supported by Government, rather than directly imposed by Government. (All "voluntary" of course!™)

Despite constant failure, today's "progressives" are eager to gain control of the levers of Power in Government, even as they recognize that the Government we have is thoroughly as captive to the Plutocrats and Oligarchs of our era as the Government of the late 19th Century was captive to the High and Mighty of their day. Progressives of that era were able to acquire extraordinary governmental power by a strategy that wasn't necessarily political or electoral at all. Eventually they were able to succeed at the polls, but initially their success came though what we could call coups and seizures of government from Populists. But they also conducted coups and seizures from the corrupt agents of the Plutocrats and Oligarchs. Some of it was done through courtroom spectacles (for example, San Francisco after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire), and as a consequence of natural disaster (Galveston, 1900; San Francisco, 1906) and sometimes it happened through inertial forces, such as the California Progressive triumph of 1911. Once the example was set, in other words, widespread adoption was made that much easier.

There was energy behind the Early Progressive Movement that doesn't really exist any more, in part because modern progressivism tries to masquerade as something it's not, whether that be some aborted form of populism or a highly attenuated form of Liberalism. The problem is the Libertarian roots of modern "progressivism" and the styles of deception that entails.

Hating on Teh Government and insisting that one will never vote for a Democrat again is self-canceling. One's political aspirations immediately stall. To assert that Republicans are somehow "better" than Democrats because they are So Very Principled is simply absurd. To hate or fear Teh Government because of its All Powerfulness -- while trying desperately to gain a Seat At The Table of the same All-Knowing, All-Pervasive, All-Powerful Government is crazy -- or it is false.

Obsession with electoral politics and the media, which is pretty much all the major players in the "lefty" blogosphere do, is a form of entertainment, not action. It is passive and observational, it is not an agent for "change" at all; in fact, these obsessions reinforce the rightist drift of American politics (which is built in from its origins) and they help maintain the relationship status quo between the Powerful and their Courtiers. Anger and frustration at the antics of politicians and their media is necessary to keep the show going, and so, no matter who or what is occupying the Throne and the Big Table, they and their works are ritualistically denounced. All the time. Incessantly. No matter what. That tendency to denounce (no matter what) is also part of the Libertarian underpinnings of the modern "progressive movement" -- such as it is.

What the early Progressives realized quite clearly was that they could use -- say -- a natural disaster or they could invent a crisis that would enable them to seize the power of the Government from whatever corruption or populism held it beforetime to implement a Progressive program, and having done so, they could then promote their Progressive Success as a reason to institute Progressive policies widely. And behold, it worked.

Modern "progressives" don't seem to understand how to do that. Nor do they comprehend why it might be advisable. Maybe they don't really have an agenda, nor do they really want "change" -- what they want is to keep the Show going, indefinitely.

Maybe in some ways it's for the best!

Meanwhile, hating on Teh Government and announcing that you will never vote for a Democrat again, only for straight ticket Republicans from here on out, is to demonstrate utter foolishness and political irrelevancy.

Also sprach Zarathustra...



(Whatever happened to our Future? The Last Space Shuttle flight is now underway. There will be no more. It's Over.)