Victoria Nuland Explains All About The Ukrainian Situation to the Stakeholders: Chevron and Exxon Mobil

Back in December:



These people are insane.

Oh Yes They Can -- Or Zombie Lies That Never Die

One of the persistent myths that we hear all the time in connection with the Snowden Thing is that corporate surveillance is Oh So Benign whereas government surveillance is the Epitome of Evil because "only government has the power to arrest, incarcerate, and kill you."

This is utter unadulterated horseshit, as anyone who has lived in the real world for any length of time, or anyone who's read a book or two (what are books?) for that matter, ought to know all too well. In fact, I look for this line of "reasoning" nowadays, because I figure this little bit of corporate nonsense spew comes straight out of "Reason" magazine as well as the other Corporate Libertarian stink-tanks, of which there are many, almost too many to count.

Corporations very much can engage in arrest, incarceration and execution, with or without the let of the State, as they have been doing since their origin. Letting the private sector do it, after all, washes the hands of government for such wet work and nasty business which was one of the advantages of creating the corporate sector in the first place.

But these powers and authorities are no historical artifact, never employed today. Far from it. Many towns and some cities in the US have privatized their police forces, and every corporate facility is guarded by private security forces, many of which are armed and are authorized to use deadly force. This is not The Government, this is Corporate, through and through.

The idea that these private forces would only act to protect from some crime in progress on their own property, as any private citizen has the perfect right to do, is naive in the extreme. It's based on fantasies, not fact. The corporate sector, but not necessarily individuals, conducts surveillance, investigation and arrest at will, simply because it can. The notion that they don't or can't is absurd, and the notion that they only do it for "benign" commercial purposes -- to learn what your purchasing wants are and offer you goods and services to meet those desires -- is deep in error. They want to know everything about you in order to control you.

Oh.

"Just like the government."

Yes.

They can and do arrest one -- with their private armed forces -- whenever it suits them. Surely you've seen suspected shoplifters being cuffed and hauled into the interrogation rooms beside the entrances to Target and other major retailers. That isn't being done by undercover police, that is being done by security personnel employed by Target or whatever. The public police may be called and the suspect may be hauled off to jail, but the apprehension is done by corporate cops. This can happen on suspicion.

There are extensive "crime fighting" private surveillance and investigation networks, some with global reach, which can and do look into every aspect of a targeted individual's life -- without warrants, let it be noted -- and which can produce complete dossiers on anyone. Those dossiers can be and are sold to interested parties, including governments, but they are typically produced by request of and payment by corporate sector interests (such as insurance companies and the like) for the purpose of making some poor sod's life miserable, a sod who has displeased some corporate master or other.

Corporations work hand in glove with (public) law enforcement agencies which in effect serve at the pleasure of the corporate sector and as an extension of corporate power and authority. This is perhaps their most insidious measure because the appearance is that a (public) law enforcement agency is in charge of surveillance, investigation, apprehension, and arrest of an individual when they're not. They are acting at the direction of and with information provided by a corporate entity. They are taking action as extensions of corporate power and authority. This is so utterly routine, most of us take it for granted, but all by itself, it puts the lie to the notion that corporate surveillance is "benign." It isn't.

There are private courts which exist in many cases to ensure that individuals do not have the right to adjudication of complaints against corporations in courts of law, but must submit to corporate-courts instead. Some of these private courts, however, exist to handle parts of the (public) justice system's "overload." In other words, they have all the powers and authorities of Government courts, though they are not Government, and they are not answerable to the People.

Just so, there are extensive private corporate owned and operated prisons, which also have all the powers and authorities over inmates as any Government Prison might have, if not in fact more, and yet they are not Government and they are not answerable to the People.

We could go on and on detailing just how pervasive corporate control of citizens and governments is in this country, but the point I'm making is that the claim that corporate surveillance is "benign" because corporations don't have the powers of arrest, incarceration and life/death over individuals is a lie, straight out. In many cases, they do, and they use it.

And of course, there is the model private sector quasi-government enforcement agency, the so-called Mafia. Someone will run around screaming, "But that's illegal!!!!!" Yes? And?

----------------------------
NOTE: This post leaves aside the whole corporate subversion of national sovereignty issue embodied in the proliferating free trade agreements and intellectual property protective measures being bruited in various fora as we speak -- fora that are closed to the public, of course. In many of these cases, government power and authority is specifically ceded to corporate interests, which are then authorized to act as if they were government, without let or hindrance.

--------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Yasha Levine at Pando.com expands on the premise of this post with plenty of examples of corporate ability have people... erm... put away. It's a nasty business. And he points out that Young Snowden, like nearly all his partisans, dismiss the problem of corporate surveillance with an airy wave and a jolly, "Corps can't kill ya!" Ha. Utter horseshit.

"[He] shall not seek and [he] will not accept..."

The histrionics surrounding the spitballed notion that Young Snowden might receive amnesty in order for the Spooks (of which he is one, let's not forget) to persuade him to return to this country with the "rest" of his hoard of NSA secrets is interesting.

When the notion was first floated on the CBS Evening News last Friday, few seemed to notice. If I hadn't seen the "60 Minutes" segment which was presented on the CBS Evening News during which the idea was floated, I doubt I would have known about it until Monday, as I've sworn off "60 Minutes" for cause.

It's a fairly radical idea coming from the desk of someone charged with dealing with the Problem of Snowden and His Hoard, but there you are. We live in interesting times. The discredited leaders of the Agency are all in a dither over it, running around with their hair on fire denouncing the Very Idear as nonsense and perfidy and a terrible precedent, yadda, yadda. Which I'm sure it is, but at this point -- unless arrangements that we know not of have already been made -- it's an "idea" being run up the flagpole to see what the response will be, it is not an offer.

Outside the Agency, the keening and garment rending is just as strong, especially on Team Greenwald's bench where the idea is being met with fierce resistance and denunciations. Of course if Snowden counter-defects back to the USofA, it could be interpreted as a slap in Greenwald's face for so crassly cashing in on the Hoard. Which leads me to wonder. Has a deal been attempted? In other words, are Spooks in contact with Snowden directly? Oh my goodness if they are. Would he be willing to follow through with the request of his father's (I believe it was) that he be granted legal amnesty in order to return to the USofA and escape from the clutches of the Putin Security State, and not be prosecuted at home?

The Nations and Their Future -- a continuacion

I've argued in the past that de-tribalization is a necessary per-requisite for the adoption and sustenance of nationalism. Tribal societies do not -- on their own -- become "nations" (though some American Indian tribes are called "nations" in both law and custom. The one I'm most familiar with is the Cherokee Nation, but that's another story for another time.)

My premise for this series is that what are known as nation-states today are a concept and construct of Imperialism, dating back at least to Rome, and probably to well before the advent of the Roman Empire. The purpose was to establish local/regional loyalty to the distant Palace or to the Crown. The Nations might begin as Imperial Provinces, but over time the Provinces assume quasi-autonomous status and eventually, if they aren't absorbed by another Empire, they become independent of the Imperial thrall, nation-states, yet they still may be loyal to the ideals of the former ruling power.

As the Western Roman Empire disintegrated, the ruling concepts were maintained in the East, and periodic revivals of the Roman Imperial idea would occur in the West. While the disintegration of Roman rule in the West opened Europe to invasion and conquest by tribalists who had been kept outside the gates, as it were, by Roman Legions, and thus opened Europe to de-nationalization, re-tribalization in many respects, the Roman idea was never actually lost. Many of the elites of the conquering hordes from the East had already been Romanized before the fall of the Imperial state, and most of the conquered peoples were as thoroughly Romanized as any in the Empire.  The Church, too, preserved, protected and defended the Roman ideals of governance, pomp and state.

Consequently, while re-tribalization did occur subsequent to the end of Roman rule in Western Europe, there was also a counter influence tending toward de-tribalization and nationalism -- a counter influence that eventually triumphed with the establishment of nation-states more or less derived from and patterned on Roman prototypes. Of course the hundreds of years that this process took meant that very little of the nationalism that emerged in Europe after the reintroduction of the nationalist concept (beginning, I would say, in the 16th century, but accelerating in the 18th and reaching a climax in the 19th century with the unification of Germany and Italy) looked like "Rome." And yet, without the influence of the Roman Empire, nationalism might not have taken root in Europe at all. For Europeans, it seems to me, are at root as naturally tribal a people as any on Earth.

But being de-tribalized, they could be and were subject to nationalism, which is a form of enforced loyalty to a nation-state rather than to a tribe, nationalism which under certain conditions can become an impetus toward Empire.  Which was certainly the case in Europe from the 16th Century to the 20th until the whole enterprise exploded in World War II.

It was the End of Empire(s), something that is still assumed to be under way today, but I suggest that we're seeing essentially the opposite today, a reversion to Empire, but it is perhaps taking place under such an unfamiliar guise that it goes unnoticed or is not seen for what it is.

The key to re-Imperialization has been the numerous trade agreements that basically subvert and in many cases eliminate the concept of national sovereignty except to the extent the nation-state is loyal to a distant legal framework -- in effect, loyalty to a Palace and Crown, only now we're not dealing with crowned heads and their governments, we're dealing with corporate heads and their boardrooms. Much of the initial thrust during former Imperial periods was, of course, a product of the same institutions: corporations and their boardrooms, supported and defended by the Palace and Crown. The nation-states that emerged from post-imperialism remain in place, not as independent and sovereign entities but as dependencies of the sovereign corporations which assume the positions of the Imperial Palaces and Crowns of yore. The nation-states are not simply dependencies, they are factories of loyalty to their corporate overlords as well, much as was the case during previous periods of Imperial ascendency.

We're not quite there yet, but that's the trend I see emerging, and just as former Empires were imposed on both willing as well as unwilling subjects, I see a remarkable and somewhat unseemly tendency among some of those who should know better to pledge their loyalty and encourage the loyalty of others to the emerging corporate empire(s). It is as if reversion and devolution has taken hold of their minds.

Of course, I realize that a big part of my view of these trends -- and my revulsion -- is due to my age and the fact that I was socialized during the Post War de-imperialization period. To see a younger generation adopting a re-imperialization framework, and to see it happen through corporate entities which control governments, and to see it passed off as a Good Thing, is disheartening at best.

A counter movement is under way, in opposition to this trend toward corporate imperialism, but at this point it seems incredibly weak and powerless. The anti-globalist movement is certainly large, but because its foundations are for the most part based in the "non-violence" teachings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, it seems to be getting nowhere. Of course King and Gandhi didn't seem to be getting anywhere for a long time, either, so I don't put too much emphasis on the ultimate weakness or powerlessness of the anti-globalist movement. We can't say yet whether "people power" will be unable to thwart this new imperialism.

On the other hand, we might ask what are the positive goals of the anti-globalists; do they ultimately want to revert to a status quo ante, a return to nation-state sovereignty as it was conceived post World War II, or do they envision something else? If something else, what?

That's where I'd like to carry this consideration next time.

To be continued...

Are We Nearer The Point of Rethinking the Apparatus Which Rules Us?

From time to time, I still run into the online meme of the "end of empire" -- referring to the United States and its faltering dominance in the world. I have long challenged that premise.

The American Empire is by no means ending; if anything, it's been revitalized since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and today the Imperial USA is as strong or stronger than it has ever been. It has shown itself to be remarkably adaptable to a changing world and has taken advantage of the changes to extend its influence, power and reach without necessarily putting more boots on the ground (though there is no lack of them).


What we've been seeing instead is the "end of the Republic" -- such as it was. It was a pretty anemic Republic all along, riven as it was with factionalism and dominated by the interests of money. Oh. Well.

NSA Back In the News

Young Snowden has been photographed pushing a shopping cart at the Moskva Target (or its equivalent, one assumes) and sailing on the Moskva River with Sarah Harrison (one assumes). Of course they may not be Snowden, just a look alike. They appear to have been taken during the summertime, which doen't mean a whole lot, since Young Snowden was said to have been freed from his airport captivity sometime during the summer, but that these pictures would only now surface, and on what's said to be a sleazy tabloid news site in Russia as opposed to prim and proper FOX News in America, makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Of course this is nicely timed with the story of Greenwald finding  his billionaire and leaving the Guardian for greener -- much greener -- pastures to play in with his buds Laura and Jeremy.  With the addition of Froomkin and Segura, it's a media empire-in-process. All they'll need to add now is Michael Hastings. Oh, wait.

On This Labor Day

A video sing along from Wisconsin:



An excerpt from "History of the American Working Class" by Anthony Bimba, revised edition, 1936
CHAPTER XXXIV  Recent tendencies, 1933 - 1936

The following main tendencies characterize this period:

(a) Inability of the ruling class to overcome the crisis.

(b) Contradictions in the ruling class over the uneven distribution of profits under the New Deal

(c) Disillusionment of large sections of workers, farmers and petty bourgeoisie with the Democratic and Republican parties, giving rise to the development of a Farmer-Labor Party movement

(d) The struggle for industrial unionism in the trade union movement

(e) Growing menace of fascism

(f) Inner crisis of the Socialist Party -- widening gulf between left-wing Militants and old-guard reactionaries

(g) The growth and influence of the Communist Party and the development of a movement for a united front.

The glowing promises of President Roosevelt to usher in prosperity through his New Deal did not materialize. The country still finds itself in the depression. The National Recovery Act has been ruled out by the decision of the United States Supreme Court which declared the N.R.A. unconstitutional for the simple reason that it was no longer needed by the uppermost strata of the ruling class. The N.R.A. had accomplished its mission. Prices had soared sky-high, the standard of living of the masses had been lowered, the profits of the big bankers, great corporations, and the trusts had been restored and greatly increased, the illusion of the workers that the N.R.A. guaranteed the right to organize and strike had begun to be dangerous. The Supreme Court had to act according to the wishes of the Bankers' Association and the Manufacturers' Association.

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.

Ponder It. There Is A Lesson To Be Learned

From yesterday's NYT. Given what I posted earlier about the Guardian, and given the general state of the media these days, including especially the New York Times, I look at stories like this with a skeptical and critical eye. One has to. One never knows whether what is chosen for publication is true, "truthy," or false, and one doesn't necessarily know what the underlying motivation for these stories is. That said, this one is... interesting. Don't think such things couldn't happen, and haven't already happened, here...

Sudden Improvements in Egypt Suggest a Campaign to Undermine Morsi

By BEN HUBBARD and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: July 10, 2013

CAIRO — The streets seethe with protests and government ministers are on the run or in jail, but since the military ousted President Mohamed Morsi, life has somehow gotten better for many people across Egypt: Gas lines have disappeared, power cuts have stopped and the police have returned to the street.

Related

• Egypt’s Government Broadens Its Accusations Against Islamists (July 11, 2013)

• Egypt Is Arena for Influence of Arab Rivals (July 11, 2013)

• The Lede: Egyptian Journalist Was Killed by Army Sniper He Filmed, Family Says (July 10, 2013)

• The Lede: New Video Appears to Show How Predawn Raid Unfolded in Cairo (July 9, 2013)

As crime and traffic worsened under President Mohamed Morsi, the police refused to respond, hurting the quality of life and the economy. Since his ouster last week, officers have returned to patrols.

The apparently miraculous end to the crippling energy shortages, and the re-emergence of the police, seems to show that the legions of personnel left in place after former President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011 played a significant role — intentionally or not — in undermining the overall quality of life under the Islamist administration of Mr. Morsi. 

And as the interim government struggles to unite a divided nation, the Muslim Brotherhood and Mr. Morsi’s supporters say the sudden turnaround proves that their opponents conspired to make Mr. Morsi fail. Not only did police officers seem to disappear, but the state agencies responsible for providing electricity and ensuring gas supplies failed so fundamentally that gas lines and rolling blackouts fed widespread anger and frustration. 

“This was preparing for the coup,” said Naser el-Farash, who served as the spokesman for the Ministry of Supply and Internal Trade under Mr. Morsi. “Different circles in the state, from the storage facilities to the cars that transport petrol products to the gas stations, all participated in creating the crisis.”

Read the rest at the link.

The corporatist fascists are determined to lord over all, everywhere around the world, and they will let nothing and no one stand in their way. They will cheerfully undermine, subvert, and co-opt the legitimate complaints of peoples everywhere in order to institute even harsher and more exploitative rule, they will seize control of revolutions, they will sadistically murder and torture, they will destroy whole nations when it pleases them.

Without the countering force of something like the Soviet Union, why shouldn't they do whatever they want? It's not like there is anything standing in their way. One might think that "Red" China would be a bulwark against the predations of the globalist capitalist fascists, but no. China's leadership seems to be all in with the program, perhaps with some ulterior motive, but whatever it is, it doesn't include rescuing the masses from the socio and psychopaths running roughshod over the hopes and aspirations of billions of people day in and day out.

I've thought a bit more about the problem of Corporate Defenders, as I ran into another one at dKos in bobswern's post on the march -- and essential triumph -- of "Inverted Totalitarianism" in the USofA. It's a topic I've dealt with myself from time to time, though not as directly as bobswern does. At any rate, among the comments were some by one called "dumbo" who manned up to defend the digital data corps -- the "partners" in the PRISM data hoovering program -- as poor set upon innocents who will lose all kinds of business overseas because no one will trust them now, and they, poor things, are the victims of government coercion and blackmail, and oh isn't it awful; tears, rended garments, covering with ashes.

No. Apparently it doesn't occur to "dumbo" that these corps are paid handsomely for their services (whether actually coerced or not remains to be seen, but I for one doubt the stories of coercion given the lies and the marketing ploys they all pull on users every day. They may be crying "coercion" but it's not believable.) 

Just to make matters worse for Corporate Defenders, the Guardian's latest "blockbuster revelation" is that Microsoft, everybody's favorite whipping boy anyway, has been all in on the surveillance racket from the get-go. Yes? Well, how does anybody think these companies all over Silicon Valley and the world came into being in the first place, for cripes' sake? Personal computing and the internet and all these digital/electronic devices we're so addicted to and every single thing surrounding them came out of the Defense Department -- "evil government" -- either directly or indirectly, and the digital data companies, big and small, are all tied together in symbiosis with government. 

The integration of a wide range of corporate partners (not just in the digital data field) with government agencies is so commonplace these days as to be taken completely for granted. The agency I worked for carried out projects on behalf of some of these partners and vice versa. The integration of personnel wasn't quite as complete, but it wasn't unusual for there to be corporate sponsored workers on site.

So they can stop with the whining and crying and breast beating about how they've been kidnapped and blackmailed and raped by All-Powerful Zapper Wielding Bureaucrats. It's absurd.

The companies are paid very well by their government partners. Very well indeed.

Your tax money at work!

Corporate Defenders: Are They Necessary? And What -- Ultimately -- Do They Want Anyway?

In the recently released second segment of Glenn Greenwald's interview with Edward Snowden, recorded in Hong Kong in June, Snowden used a couple of locutions that I found instructive as to his motivations.

Quoting from the interview, Snowden says:

(3:03)…they [the government] are applying it [surveillance authority] to the whole society by basically subverting the corporate partnership…

(3:57) …US Government co-opts corporate power to its own ends…

[My emphasis]

I alerted on this kind of talk immediately because it's the kind of thing you hear from Libertarians and their fellow travelers all the time, and this particular way of speaking about the relationship between corporations and government -- that is, "subverted" and "co-opted corporate power" -- may as well be from the Koch Cookbook for Corporate Liberation. 

When I posted about this here and elsewhere, I made the point that he's got it completely backward, essentially inverting reality. The government -- Our So-Called Government -- serves corporate interests and is the creature of its corporate partners, not the other way around. The Government of the United States has long been effectively a wholly owned subsidiary of extremely powerful transnational corporations, and none of us are ever allowed to forget it.

"Step out of line, the man come and take you away..."

Make no mistake, Our Government was serving corporate interests then (in 1968), nearly as much as it is now, as anyone who was aware of the profits being made on the meatgrinder of the Vietnam War knew.

And yet here we see that in SnowdenWorld, it's just the opposite, The All-Powerful Government makes the corporations its bitches and slaves by "subverting" them and "co-opting" their power. That view, in my view, is seriously warped, but it gives us an insight into what's motivating Snowden and what his objectives may be. Snowden's views are aligned with those of Greenwald, who showed himself to be a Corporate Libertarian quite some time ago with his awkward and ham-handed defense of Citizens United and corporate personhood, and -- I would come to learn -- Snowden is aligned with quite a few other Corporate Defenders on the internet and in the digital data industry who apparently really do see themselves and their companies as "subverted" and "co-opted" by government, rather like kidnap or rape victims forced to engage in icky behaviors they otherwise wouldn't do if not for the coercion and imposition of authority upon them by nasty, evil government.

I see.

No. Wait.

This notion of government-evil/corporation-good is bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit. Corporate interests run governments at every level, top to bottom, practically everywhere around the world. There hasn't been an era of greater consolidated corporate control of government in history. Nothing even close to it has been encountered in this country since the Gilded Age, yet here's Snowden and other Corporate Defenders claiming against plain evidence to the contrary that corporate partners don't have enough independence and power, and that they are forced, somehow, to abide by icky government command and control, indeed that they are subverted and co-opted to the will of this Alien Government Thing, and here's proof!

Dude needs to get a grip.

He appears to be caught up in a Corporate Libertarian mindset -- and fantasy -- that I'm surprised to find is shared by so many otherwise rational and even progressive individuals who apparently see government as a kind of Ultimate Evil and corporations -- to the extent they "exist" at all -- as Benign Entities who would Rule Over Us with Loving Grace -- if only they were allowed to do so without the interference of ... (ewww!) government. [And that's only a little bit of hyperbole.]

In arguing these points at FDL yesterday, the Corporate Libertarian separation from reality became quite clear to me, as did the underlying authoritarianism of those who hold this viewpoint.

As I frequently ask of Libertarians: "Liberty for whom? To do what?" They never have an answer, because if they start answering it, the real repugnance and ugliness of their ideals would be revealed. Based on my own experience with Libertarians and their fellow travelers over many years, it has always been part of the Libertarian program to obfuscate and deny their real intentions and to propagandize the ignorant masses into believing in and acting on ideals of "liberty" and policies contrary to their own best interests.

My version of the Libertarian Motto: "I demand the liberty to impose my authority on you."

But this post is not about that. I have written many others that are. This post is about what I see as the end game of Corporate Libertarians, and what is driving Snowden in particular. This post is about the objectives of Corporate Defenders and whether their ideal world is really the world we want to live in now or in  the future.

Greenwald and Snowden said all they wanted was a debate about the kind of world we want to live in; their partisans have ordered the rest of us to confine that debate to the issue of the NSA's surveillance, which has -- not surprisingly -- almost nothing to do with the real debate we need to have.  Which is not to defend NSA's domestic surveillance activities in any way. It is merely to point out that NSA's surveillance activities are hardly the most important matter in the debate over the kind of world we want to live in.

I would say unfettered corporate control of that world is a far more important matter in the debate we should be having, and that is the debate that Corporate Defenders and Corporate Libertarians are anxious to avoid or prevent.

Instead, they aver that there is too much government control of corporations, and that NSA's domestic surveillance activity is the case in point.

In fact, for all intents and purposes, the US Government particularly, and governments throughout the world generally, are the creatures and the servants of corporate interests -- to the exclusion of the public interest at almost all times, almost everywhere.  This is a main reason why so many people are so enraged and rebellious in so many places so much of the time. Hello?

There is not too much government control of corporations, if anything there is far too little. Corporate interest runs roughshod over the public. Corporate interest is the principal business of most governments most of the time. Corporate interest comes first and foremost, and we are near the point where corporate interest is the only interest of government.

But, but, but, but Secret FISA COURT ORDERS!!!! Ayiee! Snowden proved it, did he not?

As I and others have pointed out, FISA court orders to companies providing data to the Surveillance System are functionally eyewash and ass covers for those companies to immunize them from lawsuits by the public for ongoing privacy violations and violations of terms of service.

And here it's important to realize that the Surveillance System is a joint partnership operation by an essentially fused corporate-government. It is not something that has been imposed on an innocent corporate sector by an evil government despite the arguments of Corporate Defenders to the contrary.

So with the Corporate Defenders' premise (of too much government control of corporations) undermined, what is the point of all this hoohah, anyway?

It is, in my view, to so diminish the power and authority of "government" that it literally ceases to exist as an independent entity and becomes entirely -- not substantially, but entirely -- the creature of a global, implacable, and unassailable Corporate-State.

In other words, the end-game, as I see it, is the full privatization of government everywhere around the world, in perpetuity, without let or hindrance, forever and ever, world without end, amen.

And the contest, such as it is, is over which corporate interests will have control of this ideal privatized government, and to some extent how soon it can and will be implemented, with the digital companies demanding primacy and the liberty to extend their reach and power immediately and indefinitely.

That's what this is all about. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Is the coming Corporate World, masterminded and controlled by a handful of digital Super-Corps the kind of world we want to live in?

Let's have that debate.

"All watched over by machines of loving grace."

The Snowden Interview, Part the Second

Cliquez ici

The Guardian is certainly staying on top of most things these days, and as far as I'm concerned, that's fine. Even though this interview segment with Young Snowden was recorded whenever it was that Snowden was in Hong Kong and will no doubt form part of Laura Poitras's next award-winning feature film on Whistle-Blowers, it might give us a little more insight into what's driving him.

At one point, he asserted that the government was subverting its corporate partners. And I thought that was an intriguing and possibly illuminating locution.

The government is subverting corporations.

Think about that for a minute.

In SnowdenWorld, the corporate partners in the National/International Surveillance State are somehow being subverted  into cooperating with the All-Powerful Government when in fact, the corps are the ones designing and building the surveillance infrastructure, implementing the surveillance and analyzing the data. They've been doing it for decades. It's obvious symbiosis, hardly "subversion," but that's the term Young Snowden uses -- and it raises all kinds of red flags about him and the team he's playing for.

If he truly believes the corporate partners in the Surveillance State are innocents somehow subverted by the government into serving the interests of perfidy, whereas left to their own devices they would never-ever do such a thing, gasp, perish the thought, then Dude has lifted his own mask to reveal what I call a Corporate Libertarian which Greenwald showed himself to be quite some time ago, and which we might be learning the Guardian is as well.

A Corporate Libertarian inverts the whole notion of government, and like the Kochs, uses Stalinist propaganda tactics to reverse notions of power and authority, by asserting that the government -- which we've known for years is being run by and on behalf of corporate interests -- is somehow controlling the very corporations which own the government, and the only answer is to eliminate the power of government over corporations. To Liberate them. Once. And. For. All.

Of course, this runs absolutely contrary to the Public Interest, but the Public Interest is not even recognized by Corporate Libertarians. The only interest that matters is that of the corporations -- that already control and own the government.

Snowden may be some kind of naif in all of this, but I don't think he is. I know Greenwald isn't. He has been a factional player on behalf of certain kinds of corporate interests, and the liberation of those interests since he first emerged in the so-called Lefty Blogosphere.

From what's in the second Snowden interview segment at the Guardian, combined with his violently authoritarian and anti-public interest chat logs at Ars Technica, it looks like he's playing for the same team Greenwald is.

Nice.

And half the world is falling for it.

Looks like a major power play is under way in which Our Corporate Rulers are intent on making the public -- or at least some significant part of it -- willingly submit to their loving grace.

All righty then...

If you haven't seen this Adam Curtis series on our benevolent machines, by all means, check it out. And then go back and watch the Bernays series.

And then perhaps review my series on the Kochs

I really hate this shit.

Several Things To Keep In Mind About This Domestic Surveillance Thing

*If all you're paying attention to is the NSA, you're missing a good 70% or more of the story, given that word has it (not from Snowden or the Guardian, btw) that at least 70% of the (secret) intelligence budget goes to the myriad private sector "partners" who actually do and analyze much of the surveillance and who design, build, and operate most of the surveillance infrastructure.

*The motivations of Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian in being the primary conduit for this story do matter, just as one would be interested in the motivations of Sy Hersh and the New Yorker or Judith Miller and the New York Times or Brian Killmeade and FOX. To attempt to deny that Greenwald's and the Guardian's motivations matter is an attempt to obscure the full story. Generally speaking, that's not wise in a case of this sort.

*While most of the surveillance revelations aren't new, the documentation is. The failure to produce documentation is partly why previous whistle-blowing efforts about domestic surveillance failed to carry the kind of punch this one has -- though they weren't ignored by any means. The documentation provided by Snowden to the press has reinforced the stories we've been told or have surmised about domestic surveillance over the years, and it has made quite plain that our worst suspicions about it were actually on the mark.

*It is not beyond consideration that this whole brou-ha-ha is a "limited hangout" operation. Such things have happened before and no doubt they will be done again. It could equally be that there are several simultaneous factors at play. We do not live in a linear, binary world in which only one path is open, only one fact can be considered true, and only one potential is possible.

*Let's keep in mind that at the time of the first surveillance bombshells from the Guardian, there were a number of brewing pseudo-scandals and potentially real scandals surrounding the Presidency. Benghazi. IRS. AP reporter surveillance. FOX reporter surveillance. And there was an ongoing background rumble over the failure of the Justice Department to charge and bring to trial any of the malefactors of great wealth who had plunged the country and the world into such economic misery. Keep in mind, too, that the initial stories were posted from Hong Kong -- which is Chinese territory despite efforts to obscure the fact -- while the Chinese Premier was meeting with the American President in California. Pretty much all of the pseudo- and potential scandals have faded from the "news" while this one has taken  primary attention.

*Don't forget the "news" is a corporate enterprise -- which includes the Guardian. There is little or no "independent media" of national or international scope and reach. All serve corporate interests. Why they focus on what they do -- and when -- is always a matter for corporate interest and determination. Just because a "news" outlet is presenting information you agree with or want to hear doesn't mean it is 1) independent; or 2) telling the truth.

*Corporations compete with one another for attention and pre-eminence, and they co-operate with one another in pursuit of mutual interest. Surprisingly enough, they can do both at the same time.

*In much of the western world, and certainly in the United States, government serves the interests of its corporate partners first. We refer to "captive government" in these cases. An exclusive focus on the NSA in these stories obscures the overall picture of surveillance in this country and it serves as a means to diminish the importance of the corporate sector in organizing and conducting the surveillance.

*How the surveillance is implemented and what is done with the information once acquired -- and by whom -- is still unclear, though the picture is somewhat less murky than it once was. There is an active information marketplace wherein data is traded and bought and sold like commodities. The government is an eager player in this marketplace, but so are many, many private sector interests. Who gets what information and what they then do with it is still enough of a mystery that most people have no idea what kind of information on them is accessible and to whom, and few have any idea to what purposes it may be put.

*The recent spectacular death of Rolling Stone and BuzzFeed journalist Michael Hastings has sent shock waves through parts of the media, though it doesn't seem to have affected other parts at all. By comparing and contrasting reactions it may be possible to get a better picture of media... complicity, let's say... in pursuit of powerful interest. Who do you protect? Who do you serve?

The Contractor Connection

Discussion of the rampant domestic spying going on in the United States (which all the officials like to claim isn't "REALLY" spying, rightsurewhatevah) now and then turns to the private sector operatives (like Young Snowden, who has apparently defected, who knows where -- disappeared from his Hong Kong luxury digs at any rate) who actually do the grunt work to collect and analyze the overabundance of data that pours into the system by the hour.

Ah yes The Contractors. On one of the Sunday Shows, an R congressman was quoted as saying that this sort of thing should all be done by the private sector ("as it used to be") and I thought WTF? The private sector basically runs this system as it is, along with a great deal else of ostensibly government responsibility, and he wants to turn it all over to the private sector? Great. What a maroon.

After this settled in for a while, I came to realize this is essentially the position of most Libertarians (and their small "l" variants as well). Most of them don't have a problem with universal surveillance -- as long as it is not being done by the government. In fact, they seem to be quite in favor of private sector spying on individuals, no matter how intrusive, especially if it is done for marketing purposes. The claim is that the private sector is benign because it doesn't have the power or authority to arrest, incarcerate, compel, and execute. I've even heard supposed liberals in congress express this view.

This position strikes me as either hopelessly naive or so deepy deceptive and cynical it reeks.

These days, elements of the private sector very much do have the "powers and authorities" once thought to be reserved to governments, powers and authorities which they cheerfully and fully exercise at will. One of Young Snowden's points was that he, as a lowly (private sector) analyst, had the power and authority to "wiretap" anyone at any time, and that the upshot of this power and authority is that the life of anyone who a (private sector) analyst took an interest in could be destroyed with no recourse whatever for the victim.

We may think of the Imperial Heyday of Great Britain as another example of private sector powers and authorities. Until the Sepoy Mutiny in India, for example, British rule of the subcontinent was exercised through a private corporation, the East India Company, that had even more extensive powers and authorities than the Crown itself.

The notion that there is something benign about private sector/corporate rule as opposed to government rule is absurd and disingenuous, ahistorical, and very, very wrong.

But it is routinely parroted in defense of the constant private sector spying on individuals with almost no recognition that nearly all the work of the NSA among the other (government) domestic spying agencies is being done by private sector contractors. More and more government functions are being turned over to the private sector every day, at home and abroad, and it doesn't appear on its face to have made ordinary lives any better, nor had it enhanced accountability or ended corruption in any perceptible way.

In fact, it could be -- and should be -- argued that a big part of the problem we face as peoples of the United States and the World is directly due to the passion for privatization that has afflicted governments far and wide. By turning over so much of the responsibility of government and governing to unelected and unaccountable institutions, executives and boards, and by placing so much power and authority over the lives of most of us into the hands of these people and institutions, government itself has become the handmaiden to them.

Universal surveillance of the population is necessary to protect and defend the government and its (private sector) sponsors -- which, BTW, include the very corporate spy agencies that are doing most of the domestic surveillance being railed about these days.

In all the passionate OUTRAGE!!!! ® over the domestic spying revelations currently featured in the media, that simple fact is often neglected -- or outright denied.

From the AntiFa Trenches, c. 1938 (contd)

More and more, it's becoming clear that the program in operation by Our Government and its Owners and Sponsors is quite simply that of a Fascist amalgam of the State and Corporate interest against the People and the Public Interest. By exploring what was going on during the Great Depression, and the forces at work at that time to assert the dominance of Corporate interest over that of the People -- ie: fascism -- in our country then, we can better understand and ultimately fight what is going on now.

Of course, Government was much smaller then, and one of the ways Corporate interest coped with the inability of smaller government (which they claim to want once again) is by establishing private armies and private espionage activities used against workers and worker-led organizations.

The La Follette Civil Liberties Committee  held hearings in the US Senate from 1936 to 1940 and documented employer violations of the rights of workers to organize and to bargain collectively.

Of course nowadays, unions seem rather quaint, anachronisms from another era. In the 1930's they were the mainstays against the total victory of corporatist-fascist rule in the United States. Given the low estate that worker unions have fallen to, and the rampant resurgence of fascism as a consequence, it might be wise to explore the benefits of some kind of worker/citizen organization.

From "The Peril of Fascism," by A. B. Magil and Henry Stevens, published by International Publishers, 1938:

"Big Business: Fountainhead of Fascism"

The LaFollette Committee uncovered many othere instances of close co-operation beterrn public authorities and labor espionage agencies and munitions companies. These activities bear an ominous resemblance to the assistance which the Italian police and carabineers rendered to the blackshirts on the eve of Mussolini's assumption of power.

The extent of big business armament, like the size of the corporation armies, is not exactly known; but the clue to its enormous proportions is contained in the revelation that three companies -- the Lake
Erie Chemical Company, Federal Laboratories, and the Manville Manufacturing Company -- sold $606,572 of tear and nauseating gas from 1933 to 1937.* (*Among the largest purchasers were Firestone Rubber Company, Bethelhem Steel, Carnegie Steel, Jones and Laughlin Steel, Youngstown Sheet and Tube, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber. In addition to enormous quantities of gas, the large corporations laid in supplies of machine guns, sub-machine guns, rifles, revolvers, and other instruments of "collective bargaining.")

The munitions companies, besides arming corporations, engage, like the private detective agencies, in extensive provocation in order to drum up business. The LaFollette Committee revealed that Federal Laboratories sent out hair-raising descriptions of wholly fictitious Communist "activities" in an effort to frighten their clients into increasing their armament orders.**(**One committee witness, a motion picture cameraman, testified that during the San Francisco marine strike, an agent for Federal Laboratories, J. M. Roush, had fired a gas projectile at James Engle, a striking longshoreman, "for the benefit of the motion picture cameramen." Engle was severely wounded. In his report to B. H. Barker, vice-president of Federal Laboratories, Roush laconically reported the incident: "I might mention that during one of the riots, I shot a long range projectile into a group, a shell hitting one man and causing a fracture of the skull from which he has since died. [Roush's report was somewhat too sanguine. Actually, Engle recovered from his injuries.][Ché's note: cf. Scott Olsen and others injured in Oakland during police violence against Occupy.] As he was a Communist, I have had no feeling in the matter and I am sorry that I did not get more." Vice-President Barker, in his reply, commended Roush for his "spendid report." (From Associated Press, March 5, 1937.)

"Demagogues of Fascism"

"The German has not the slightest notion of how a people must be misled if the adherence of the masses is to be sought," wrote Hitler in Mein Kampf. (this statement has been deleted since the 12th edition published in 1932.)

The misleading of the people is part of the normal practice of capitalism. The whole bourgeois political edifice, with its formal and legal democracy concealing the economic and political domination of a small number of wealthy men, is based on a fundamental class deception. The existence of certain civil and labor rights -- most of which have been wrested from the ruling class only after determined struggle -- modifies but does not basically alter the class character of the political superstructure. So long as it rests on the economic foundation of the private ownership of the means of production by a small wealthy class, democracy, even in the freest of capitalist republics is necessarily maimed and limited, and in the present period is under constant threat of extinction. under such conditions complete democracy is never more than a promissory note which cannot be redeemed under the profit system.

With the development of monopoly capitalism the area of social deception may be said to have expanded as the area of democracy contracted. Deception and demagogy tended to function more and more as an arm of the capitalist state itself. And some of the greatest cultural contributions of capitalism -- the press, universal education, and later the cinema and radio [television was barely available, the internet not even on the horizon at the time this was written] -- have been used as vehicles of this deception.

In the United States, with the rise of the modern political parties and political bosses in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, a particularly venal type of demagogy made its appearance. With the campaign of the Whigs to unseat Jackson in 1832 -- a campaign which was financed largely by the Bank of the United States against which Jackson had declared war -- the familiar chicanery and corruption of modern elections emerged for the first time. This took on a more organized form with the march of monopoly after the Civil War, when corrupt political machines in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and other cities  made it a practice to trade on the discontent of the masses, wormed their way into labor unions, themselves took up the banner of "reform," of attack on big business, and by combining systematic deception with bribery and gangsterism, were able to win what appeared to be popular support.

Yet even this type of social demagogy was to a large extent crude and improvised. It is only in the period of extreme decay and degeneration of capitalism, when its very existence is threatened, that there emerges a more "scientific" system of mass deception -- the demagogy of fascism.

It might be said -- writes Palme Dutt -- that if Marxism represented the development of Socialism from Utopia to science, fascism represents the development of capitalist demagogy from amateurism to science. (cf: Bernays and Adam Curtis's "The Century of Self.")

The highly specialized character of fascist demagogy derives not only from the gravity and complexity of the problems facing capitalism in crisis, but also from the fact that in most countries fascism, in its effort to achieve power, is compelled to appear in the guise of opposition to the bourgeois democratic government and times even to the capitalist system itself. The necessity of creating a mass movement that seems to express the deepest needs of the people, but in reality aims to suppress those needs with inexorable brutality, requires an elaborate technique of deception which makes all past capitalist efforts in this respect seem like gospel truth by comparison.

It is important to be clear as to the meaning of the term demagogy. The reactionaries call every revolutionist, every labor leader, every progressive a demagogue. But the essence of demagogy is the deception of the masses. Those who genuinely carry on the struggle to improve the lot of the people play a diametrically opposite role. Demagogy "is the art of playing on the hopes and the fears, the emotions and the ignorance of the poor and suffering for the benefit of the rich and powerful. It is the meanest of the arts. This is the art of fascism."

Fascist demagogy requires its own specialists and virtuosi. The Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Goebbels -- these are the masters of this "meanest of the arts." They had their precursors and teachers; but when these new suns shine, the early stars grow dim. In the United States fascism is still in its swaddling clothes, but has already produced two virtuosi of demagogy: the late Huey P. Long, and Reverent Charles E. Coughlin. Both have played with considerable success on the sufferings, the needs and the prejudices of the poor in the interest of big business reaction. And both have cast their demagogy in the mold of native American traditions. They have exploited not merely the democratic traditions of 1776 and 1861, but those of agrarian radicalism associated with Jefferson and Jackson, and with the Greenback, Farmers Alliance, Populist, and Bryan movements of the seventies, eighties, and nineties (of the 19th Century.)

Though Populism died, its traditions have proved among the most persistent and fertile in American history. They have brought forth varying fruit in the trust-busting and muckraking under Theodore Roosevelt, in the Non-Partisan League during and immediately after the war, in the LaFollette campaign in 1924, in the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and in the Farmer-Labor Party movement today. Essentially these are the deep-seated traditions of farmer-labor democracy, whose first great representative was Thomas Jefferson and whose roots go back to the origins of our republic. And it is these traditions which have fertilized practically every progressive movement in our history (and) that have been exploited by the two foremost demagogues of incipient American fascism, Huey Long and Father Coughlin. For them, the ideas of farmer-labor democracuy have served the same purpose as have Socialist and labor traditions for Hitler and Mussolini.

The chapter goes on to explain how these two men used their access to the public to promote fascism in America. We can easily make the comparison between them and Rush Limbaugh and the entire stable of Fox "news" personalities today. The dangers are the same; the difference is that the modern media demagogues have had many years to promote their versions of neo-fascism over the radio and television, whereas Long and Coughlin only had a relatively few years on the air. Times are different, the dangers are the same.

On the Gulf Oil Gusher

This is one of those classic fear-driven Doomsday Events, proto-Apocalyptic End-Times Revelations and so on that frequently just turn me off.

The media -- to the extent I've been aware of the coverage (recall, there is no cable "news" in my home, but I do look at the papers, read the Intertube reports and occasionally watch NewsHour and listen to NPR) -- seems to largely serve as a mask for what is really going on, has been that from the beginning when their Narrative was all about the Grand Romantic Heroes (of BP) that were Manfully Throwing Themselves into the breech.

Inaccurate reporting abounded, still does, and BP (and the Oil Industry) is always given the lead voice in any on-air discussion of the disaster. BP has been spinning like mad, simply not giving complete information, correct information, or useful information about the Gusher in the Gulf and what anyone is doing to staunch the flow of oil.

Because the fact of the matter is that nobody is doing a doG-damned thing to stop the oil flow, and they never have.

From all appearances, neither BP nor the Government have any interest in stopping it. The only efforts to date have focused on capturing the oil for later sale and distribution.

Over the next few months, another well may (or may not) be drilled to enable the shut-down of this one, but that's far in the future if it happens at all. They want the oil, pure and simple, and they are working tirelessly to figure out a way to capture it -- for sale and distribution.

So far as we can tell from the paucity of information available, the Predicted Environmental Catastrophe due to the Gusher in the Gulf hasn't materialized, and possibly it won't. At least not the way the breast beaters and garment renders have speculated it would. On the other hand, it may ultimately be worse than anyone imagined. We don't know. This appears to be due to the nature of the oil itself: it is not the heavy crude that fouled the Santa Barbara beaches in 1969 and that leaked out of the Exxon Valdez in 1989. Instead, it is much lighter and apparently contains lots of volatiles that evaporate quickly at the surface. So far as we know, little of the oil has reached shore, and what has was relatively easily and efficiently cleaned up. There has been little -- known -- impact on larger animals and birds, though fisheries are shut down.

It seems, from reports, that the Catastrophe is Not So Bad, and that the Powers That Be are doing the necessary work to contain, if not actually control, the Gusher and any damage it might cause.

But we don't know.

Which, quite naturally, I think, leads to some comparisons with Chernobyl. The Soviets seemed to be relatively forthcoming -- certainly compared to past performances in Calamities -- about the Chernobyl disaster and what was being done about it. But in fact we now know that the Chernobyl reactor disaster was far worse than reports or even speculation would have it at the time, and that as "forthcoming" as the Soviets appeared to be, they weren't, certainly not with regard to the consequences for the Ukraine or Russia or Europe. Radiation exposure levels were far higher than was acknowledged, many more lives were lost in trying to deal with the Catastrophe or as a consequence of environmental degradation, many, many more people were displaced than was indicated at first and so on. We saw at the time that the Authorities didn't know what to do, and what they came up with, The Sarcophagus to enclose the ruined reactor, was almost impossible to accomplish, and didn't work initially. It had to be built over, and what I understand is that it has deteriorated so much, it's going to have to be rebuilt again.

In other words, as bad as the Chernobyl Disaster was reported to be, it was actually far worse. And more than 20 years later the area has not recovered. Nor is it in some ways ever expected to recover.

The Chernobyl Disaster happened at the penultimate moment for the Soviet Union and to my mind it sealed the fate of the Soviet Authority and Empire. It was the Death Knell, something that some people understood at the time. It would take a few more years, but shortly, the Soviet Union would dispose of its Imperial possessions and internally collapse -- from weariness, among other things. Weariness that so much promise had been abused and frittered away. That so many grand plans had never been realized, and that so much that had been built by the Workers' State was so shoddy and ultimately dangerous to life and limb and the Future.

The Soviet Union was on life support by the time the Chernobyl reactor went critical. And the Soviet Union finally expired. With nary a peep and hardly any bloodshed. The End of the Soviet Union was, like its beginning, one of the most remarkable political and social transformations in world history, but the beginning of it has had far more attention paid by historians than its end. It's almost as if the collapse of the Soviet Union hasn't really settled in to conscious understanding yet. Not only does what happened remain veiled (even though much, much information is in the Public Record) the actual reasons for it and lessons learned remain a Mystery.

As if no one really wants to deal with it.

It was, after all, an earth-shaking event the consequences of which have been global and not necessarily positive -- if you're not in the Upper One Percent.

Certainly the consequences for Russia and its former Imperial possession have been economically and socially catastrophic for the millions -- but wonderfully rewarding for the few. It's not all that different in much of the rest of the world, including the United States, which is trending more in the direction of Soviet-style Imperialism and Authoritarianism (but not Totalitarianism) every day, while exploiting the masses with glee and abandon.

I don't know whether the Gulf Oil Gusher is the penultimate event of Our Own Imperial Selves. It's too soon to tell, but it certainly has the potential to be a worse physical, economic and social disaster than Chernobyl was for the Soviet Union.

Oh my yes.

Black Letter of the Law

And the problem of False Equivalence.

Today I posted some things over at Glenn's Place that touched on some interesting parallel actions in Supreme Court rulings.

On May 10, 1886, for example, the Court handed down the Yick Wo v Hopkins (that Glenn referred to in his post today) which extended 14th Amendment protection to non-citizens, such as Yick Wo himself. That same day, they also handed down the infamous Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad ruling that extended 14th Amendment protection to corporations such as the Southern Pacific Railroad in its headnote, though that was not what the Court actually ruled in its decision on the case under review. That ruling essentially upheld lower court rulings that SPRR property in Santa Clara and Fresno Counties had been improperly assessed.

On December 18, 1944, the Court ruled in Korematsu v United States that Executive Order 9066 which ordered the removal of persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast was Constitutional. On the same day, the Court ruled in Ex Parte Endo that the Government could not continue to hold American citizens (such as the rounded up Japanese Americans in the camps established as a result of the execution of Executive Order 9066) once the Government itself conceded their "loyalty" -- which the Government had done. Consequently, beginning January 2, 1945, the internees were allowed to go home if they could, and the camps prepared to shut down. This occurred while World War II still raged in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR was very much still alive.

I also posted the entire text of the 14th Amendment and the holdings in Yick Wo v Hopkins and Santa Clara v Southern Pacific as they related to the 14th Amendment.

The point Glenn was making in his post is that the Constitution applies to citizens as well as non-citizens -- ie: all "persons" under the jurisdiction and/or authority of the United States of America, as declared by the Court in Yick Wo. The point I was making was that the Court was in an expansive mood that day and was extending 14th Amendment protection, perhaps inadvertently, to corporations (ie: fictional "persons") as well as aliens.

In like manner, the Court, feeling expansive, ruled in favor of the Government in Korematsu and against continued holding of "loyal" American citizens in Endo, in effect releasing the internees.

These expansive acts are forms of balance that the Court once engaged in fairly regularly, but which it appears to have avoided for quite a while. My argument is not that there are equivalences here but is instead that these important rulings should not be considered in isolation. They have a context, and that context is often missing in the discussion of them. Part of that context is an effort by the Court to find some kind of balance between competing interests. Ie: at least the perception of Justice.

In that light, it is of some interest that at the time Yick Wo was decided, Chinese immigrants were barred from citizenship. Yet the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, by the clear black letter of the law, applied to "any person within its jurisdiction," without the caveat that that "person" had to be a "citizen." Discrimination by race under the law or in the application of the law (in this case a San Francisco ordinance) was therefore clearly unconstitutional, and so the Court ruled.

Of course they would rule ten years later in Plessey v Ferguson that "separate but equal" accommodations were Constitutional... so you never know.

However, extending 14th Amendment protections to corporations, as they did in Santa Clara, seems quite a stretch, for it presumes that the status of corporate "persons" is identical at law to that of "natural persons." But that status had never previously been established, and in fact it had been previously denied, deliberately and with substantial consideration.

Corporations are not "persons" in the sense that the term is used in the Constitution. "Persons," "People," and "Citizens" are used in the Constitution to refer to "natual persons," ie: human beings.

Corporations are artificial creatures chartered by the State ostensibly on behalf of the People. Rights and privileges of corporations are purely a function of their charters and the People's governments which approve their charters, not of the Constitution.

Rights and privileges of natural persons ultimately derive from their status as human beings; the Constitution protects those rights and privileges against excess Government intrusion. Corporations are creatures of their charters as approved by the Government; they have no existence whatsoever outside that which has been provided them by charter and Government.

It's a false equivalence to assert that corporations are entitled by the Constitution to the same protections of the 14th Amendment as "natural persons."

Corporations have no Constitutional protection at all. A plain reading of the black letter of the law would lead one to believe that the Court erred in extending 14th Amendment protection to corporations. Correcting such an error will not be easy, but it's not impossible.

One approach, which I favor, is to avoid the false "either/or" alternatives. It is false to assert that corporations either have full protection of the 14th Amendment as a function of their "personhood" or they have "no rights at all."

As creatures of their charters and the approval of the Government, they have such rights and privileges as the People shall determine, not the rights and protections guaranteed to the People by the Constitution.

This is not a hard concept except to those who would make it hard.

Corporate "personhood" is now deeply ingrained in law, and it is said to be difficult at this point to dis-"person" corporations without overturning a huge body of law concerning corporations. Yes, it is inconvenient and potentially costly, but it is not impossible.

The point is to restore corporate rights and privileges to those which can be determined by the People, through their elected bodies and statute law, not the Constitution.

In fact, "personhood" may (or may not) be sustained by the People, but it should be up to them, not an offhanded comment by a justice who then rules on something else entirely.

Another false equivalence that enters the discussion is that between Government on the one hand and corporations on the other. sysprog asked, for example, whether I thought it was desirable to "leash and regulate" governments as well as corporations. Simply put, they are not the same, and there should be no confusion and no equivalence between them. The premise of the question is wrong. Government is instituted by the People to protect the Constitution and the rights therein. Corporations are created by charter (of their shareholders/members) and approved by Government to produce a profit for their shareholders or a public good in the case of nonprofit corporations.

sysprog followed with more questions based on false premises: should corporations be subject to criminal and civil liability like natural persons or should only natural persons be subject to them? Should corporations be subject to due process? Am I arguing that corporations have no rights at all?

No, I'm arguing that corporations should have such rights and privileges as are determined by the People to be in the People's interests.

Corporations are created by their charters under the authority and regulation of the Government as the People see fit. There is no inherent or Constitutional protection for them. But that does not mean corporations necessarily have no rights.

It's simple. And this was not at all difficult to fathom prior to 1886 and the headnoted provision of 14th Amendment protections to corporations.

Black letter of the law, people.

Black letter of the law.

Losing My Religion

Well. The last couple of days have been quite the eye-opener as I spent too much time commenting and reading comments over at Glenn's Place on this Citizens United Thing that the Supremes botched royally.

I hardly even went out at all, except to get a new monitor when the old one died in the middle of a heated argument.

The first day, Glenn proposed What the Supreme Court Got Right, based largely on his understanding of the First Amendment and how the ruling upheld the First Amendment, which was the right thing to do in any case, regardless of outcome. And apparently regardless of the process to get there. According to Glenn the Court decided correctly that the campaign finance laws that were overturned were unconstitutional infringements on the First Amendment by interfering with Corporate rights to poltical speech. Rights which were, according to the majority, guaranteed to Corporate "persons" just as they were to natural persons. Rights which were, as far as Glenn was concerned, essentially "absolute."

To say that Glenn was taken to task is putting it mildly. His defense of the ruling and of his philosophy took a beating from many of his regulars as well as from a wide range of legal commentators who apparently just popped over for the day. There were some truly exquisite take-aparts of both the majority's opinion and Glenn's defense thereof. It did keep me engaged to say the least. And I tend not to be fond of legal persnicketyness on the Internet. Scotusblog and Balkinization (to name just a couple) give me a migraine on a good day. And even some of the legal nitpickery that turns up on Glenn's blog from time to time is aggravating. And he tries to keep it down.

But these were really strongly argued rejoinders to Glenn's and the Court's position, clear, plain, and devastating. By the time the day was done, his argument was basically destroyed and in tatters. Those who continued to defend him and the Court majority on this matter tended to be confined to a small (and shrinking) circle of "Libertarians, Propertarians, and Randians of all stripes" as I put it, a fringe of a fringe in political terms, which to me was very enlightening about Glenn's actual political leanings. It wasn't pretty. But I never expected anything else.

It's the kind of politics of Individualism that got going, ironically, during the upheavals of the 1960's, the Politics of Liberation and led directly to Reaganism. Which in turn opened the floodgates to Libertarian, Propertarian and Randian nonsense of all stripes, which is still "fringe" politics, but which has a strong influence in the halls of Power, though perhaps not as strong as it once had.

There were two strong political threads in the 1960's revolts and upheavals, one of Liberation, one of Community.

Liberationists were more inclined to make trouble, shall we say, for the authorities and everyone else and to call for major reordering of society and government based on principles Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness found in the Declaration, as well as on the fulfillment of the promises of the Constitution that had been long, long delayed for vast numbers of Americans. Liberationists were about Rights and Freedom more than anything else. Which, at the time, was the primary energy behind the Anti-War Movement which became huge and almost mainstream.

The other side of the '60's revolt was far less Individualist and much more Communitarian. Those so inclined tended more to withdraw from society than to try to remake it through demand and revolt. Communes of various kinds cropped up all over the country, attracting apparently like-minded people who wanted to work and live together on behalf of mutual interest and establish a viable social alternative to the American Way of Life.

Both of these threads seem to originate in the Progressive Era.

The Genius of the Reaganite Revolution was to find ways to both harness and suppress the energy of the revolts that were roiling the nation, and to preside over the dismantling of Progressivism as the commonly employed operating system for government, first in California, later in the whole country. Many of the Liberationists ultimately became Reaganites; the Communitarians mostly faded away after some truly horrible commune-experimental societies that went grossly awry. We needn't detail them here.

Glenn was born late in the 1960's and never experienced any of the ferment of the era directly. At one time, he enjoyed expressing his contempt for the Failures of the 1960's Movements, much as many of the punks his age tend to do, but he seemed to moderate his stance as the Decade of Insanity under the Busheviks wore on. My position was always that the Busheviks were Revolutionaries (or Counter-Revolutionaries as the case may be) who were engaged in one of the most radical efforts to subvert and transform the American Government as had ever been attempted. And they were succeeding. This is something Glenn and many others didn't seem to understand at all. They saw what the Busheviks were doing as of a piece with the past, and as incremental change, to be met with incremental mitigation and progress, not open revolt and principled but modest opposition. Sometimes, even principles could be abandoned. It wasn't all that different from the Democratic Party opposition to the Busheviks -- which was essentially accommodationist most of the time, punctuated by episodes of OUTRAGE!!!!™

When I noticed that this attitude was common on the Internet, it became clear to me that many of the so-called Progressives online were actually not that opposed to Bushevism. Most of them certainly didn't and don't see it as a mortal danger to what's left of the Republic as I do. If anything, they are more OUTRAGED!!!!™ at the cautious mitigationism of the Obama Regime. They attack the Democrats much more lustily than they do the Republicans.

Some of the specific things the Busheviks did were wrong (like the Iraq invasion) but there is really not that much online Progressive opposition to the overarching ideology of the Busheviks: Corporatism and Imperialism ruled through Autocracy. At least until recently, there wasn't even a recognition that that's what the Busheviks were up to -- or if there was, it wasn't considered all that important compared to the specific errors needing opposition. "Unnecessary war" in particular. Focus on more Rights and Freedom issues, less on ideological "purity."

In essence, this is Liberationism. And it's not that far from Libertarianism, Propertarianism, and Randian bullshit of all stripes.

Which is a very round about way of getting to the Second Day of the Supreme Court dervish at Glenn's Place.

It became something of a dirgy spectacle. So to counter my funk, I post another video of R.E.M.'s really outstanding show in Toronto all those years ago. By the time I'm done, I'll have ransacked all my R.E.M. shit and all of it on YouTube too. Post-Adolescent angst rules! [sings: "That's me in the spot. Light. Losing my religion..."] How old is Michael Stipe now? Oh, who cares.

On the Second Day, Glenn acknowledged that he'd been run through the wringer by his commenters, but rather than acknowledge the stupendous merits of his opponents' case, he decided on a course of insult and contempt on the one hand and showy tautology and logical fallacies on the other, over and over again.

Well, this had the interesting effect of dragging some of his defenders off the sidelines to comment that his superb argument in favor of the Supreme Court decision was so tightly and comprehensively put together and presented that though they were initially opposed to the Court majority opinion, he had by wit and strategy, convinced them they were all wrong and Glenn and the Court majority were right. "Thank you, Glenn, for opening my eyes!!"

Yeah. Sure. Quite the contrast from the day before, that's for sure.

They all said the said the same thing in essentially the same way. Hm. Fascinating. How does that work on the Intertubes?

Every now and again, another hot-shot legal mind would turn up to demolish Glenn's and the Court's arguments again, and do so beautifully, but I noticed that Glenn did not respond to any of these outstanding rebuttals, on either day. What he would do, instead, is offer up some occasional snark to this or that commenter who questioned the ruling and his defense of it, or who went off on what he thought were tangents about potential "outcomes," which in his view were not germane. He lit in to me angrily when I brought up the fact that he is an expat and doesn't have to live with the consequences of this or any other SCOTUS ruling if he doesn't want to, which might be coloring his overall dismissiveness toward those who thought the consequences of the ruling could be devastating to what's left of American democracy. He accused me of using right wing attacks, ad hominem and worse, scraping the bottom of the barrel for whatever filth I could find. Oh! My! Our Glenn is a little bit pissy, isn't he? But the point stands. When you have the option not to live and you don't live with the consequences of a rule you are defending, your approach to and attitude toward what you are observing, let alone defending, is different. He can deny it all he wants. From Rio de Janeiro. But I analogize it in my own mind to how I regarded events in California when I lived, say, in Florida or Alaska. I was interested, of course, but since what was happening didn't directly affect me, nor could it, my point of view was different by definition than those who were in the midst of what was going on.

That's as may be in any case. The upshot of the Second Day's examination of Glenn's position and the Court's ruling was that it's getting pretty grim, night is falling, it's nearly over, the American experiment in Self-Rule has self-destructed, the Corporations have won and Glenn, for all his posturing otherwise, is just as happy it is so. He's not playing on Our Team. He's on Scalia's team, the Destroyers and Punishers. Yeeks!

This seems to be a dawning but not yet confirmed revelation. He will say it's the Constitution, but we know...

Yes. Well.

Ultimately, we Americans who don't have the option to emigrate outside the country face some real, and I think fundamental, questions. Yes, the Corporations have won. We are outside the gates of the Palace, and it doesn't matter if we get "inside" or not, Rule doesn't depend on The People, or even need acknowledge The People anymore.

So what to do?

Most people, I am convinced, just as our Rulers are convinced, will simply submit and comply with whatever Our Rulers command. That's the ground that was laid under Bush and Cheney, and we aren't going back to some Halcyon way things used to be. It won't happen.

So what to do?

For most, the answer is a given, "Yield." For others, the answer is, "Accept internal exile. Try to start anew." For still others, the answer is, "Fight..."

I'm of a mind of what happened when Native Americans came to realize that they had lost their struggle with the invaders, and fighting any longer was simply going to destroy what little remnant was left of the First Peoples... and they stopped. Submitted. It was taken for granted at the time that Natives would soon be extinct and would disappear altogether, never to be seen or heard from again; their time was done.

And I look around now, and the descendants of the survivors who yielded to the invaders are probably more numerous than Indigenous peoples ever were in the land, more and more are hopeful, industrious, thriving, some are wealthy beyond imagining thanks to casino gambling among other things, their culture is by no means dead or dying, in fact it is reviving in many ways and many places, and their place in American society is still not secure, but it is far more so than ever before.

I'm of a mind of what happened when African Americans were faced with the awful truth of Jim Crow, and too many their leading voices were saying "Don't fight. It'll be OK. Or if you fight, do it through established channels. Don't make a ruckus. You'll survive." Of course many didn't survive. But when the Civil Rights struggle was resumed in earnest generations later, African Americans won, largely through appeal to the better angels that were still so much a part of American consciousness and conscience.

I look around now and a Black man is President, working hard on the Corporate Agenda, and though the position of African Americans in society is still not secure by any means, it is far more so than ever before. So long as ...

Is it now the turn of ourselves, that pseudo majority of Americans who believe in Community as well as Liberty to yield, submit to Our Generous Corporate Overlords, since now, all the institutions and avenues of Democracy have been overwhelmed by Corporate Interests?

I can't answer that question right now.

[sings: "I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

But that was just a dream
That was just a dream

But that was just a dream
Try, cry, why try?
That was just a dream
Just a dream, just a dream
Dream ]

Fade to black.