“The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.” —Lord Acton
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” —Woodrow Wilson
To validly regard yourself as wise, you must understand the context of your physical, mental, and sociopolitical situation…
I have written a book about the former two (freely available online). In this webpage, I describe and analyze, to the best of my ability, our sociopolitical situation. For the evidence that I am drawing from, click on the links in the What’s the Evidence? section or on the videos and books pages, above. You may come to consider these webpages to hold your most crucial info.
Here is a video introduction: from Harold Pinter’s acceptance speech for the 2005 Nobel Prize in literature. If you would rather read books—scholarly works, well researched with many references—I can’t recommend highly enough The Essential Chomsky (minus the linguistic chapters) and The Shock Doctrine.
Besides having some modicum of intelligence, wisdom is little more than understanding context: understanding how things fit together in the bigger picture. Without understanding context, your conclusions may be without basis. Take, for example, someone killing another person. It is wrong in some situations, but not in others. Only by understanding context—was the killing due to self-defense, insanity, or aggression—can one have any reliable conclusion.
To our collective detriment, most people believe that politics does not affect them—not in any significant way, at least—and that, even if it did, they are practically powerless to do anything about it. Such people are politically deaf, dumb, and blind, to the great benefit of state power and the wealthy, as I will soon explain.
What if you never again had to pay personal income tax? How might you be affected if a severe depression hit the United States for ten years, or longer? What would you think if you or members of your family were drafted and sent to war? How would your life change if the United States turned into a police state and took away your possessions or exterminated your family members? All of these things are the result of politics.
Do you know how to communicate with people or distribute information? Can you write a letter or send an email? Is it possible for you to meet with your City Council members or attempt a speech at a City Council meeting? Could you ask to talk with your local Congress member? Would it be possible for you to attend a protest or a march? Well then, you can make a difference in politics—and relative to most people—a huge one at that.
In the film The Matrix, the hero is given a symbolic choice between taking the blue pill—representing common delusion—and taking the red pill—representing uncommon truth. After choosing the latter, the hero is blasted with massive amounts of information that is new to him. These webpages will be a bit like that for you. If you chose uncommon truth instead of common delusion, you might not learn kung fu, but you, like the movie’s hero, will learn extensive information that will make you crucially wiser and sociopolitically empowered.
Although the views that I, and numerous others, elucidate on these pages would be called extreme by the vast majority of the population, these views are not without reasonable, sufficient, and reliable evidence. They are the result of extensively studying the evidence and learning the truth that lies behind the face of the Establishment, underneath the surface of the mainstream’s false assumptions and norms. They are the result of breaking free from the common delusion and finding the uncommon truth.
“When you try to look honestly at your own society—its history, its actions, and so on—you are facing a massive deluge of propaganda and indoctrination that is trying to create a delusionary picture. … As the first principle of the foundation of government, [David Hume] pointed out that power is actually—in any society, he said—power is in the hands of those who are governed. They don’t know it, but power is actually in their hands. And therefore, to maintain authority, it is necessary to impose consent: it is necessary to compel the general population to consent to the authority of the masters.” —Noam Chomsky
The word that might best describe our sociopolitical system is the word conspiracy. The American people live outside of, and oppressed by, at least two layers of conspiracy: the outer layer serving the inner.
“Well, I had been consulting for the government, and this is now ’64, for about six years at that point, since ’58, in particular since ’59: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and now Johnson. And I had seen a lot of classified material by this time—I mean, tens of thousands of pages—and had been in a position to compare it with what was being said to the public. The public is lied to every day by the President, by his spokespeople, by his officers. If you can’t handle the thought that the President lies to the public for all kinds of reasons, you couldn’t stay in the government at that level, or you’re made aware of it, a week. … The fact is Presidents rarely say the whole truth—essentially, never say the whole truth—of what they expect and what they’re doing and what they believe and why they’re doing it and rarely refrain from lying, actually, about these matters.” —Daniel Ellsberg
Although many people are aware of the outer layer of conspiracy to various degrees, they do not consider it to be a conspiracy at all. They view it, and venially so, as just systemic corruption. This is in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans have no idea of how bad this corruption really is: how it renders itself immune from, and disables, our democratic processes. Further, the people who engage in this systemic corruption—in wrongful and usually unlawful acts—do so, albeit perhaps loosely, willfully, cognizant of this corrupt system that is so damaging, if not treasonous, to our representative republic. Such joint complicity, and often outright agreement, to do wrongful acts meets the definition of conspiracy quite well. Moreover, this systemic corruption, as evidence and reason leaves little doubt, is only the outer-most layer. It merely provides cover, funding, and control to the inner layer. And since this systemic corruption is designed—or, at minimum, manipulated—by the inner layer, it should be, to be more accurate, called systematic corruption.
“[F]rom the White House, through The Pentagon, down to including the press briefings from Central Command, … what you find is that it is people whose job it was to get politicians elected were now using the same techniques to do with, to sell war, and to twist the stories. And I must say, as a military guy, that’s sort of what violates my integrity. You know, people say, ‘Well, politicians do that.’ Well, ok, maybe I’ll accept that. But I don’t accept sending American men and women to war, to die, using political spin techniques. … And this is what’s frightening: that if you trace the stories—you know, Jessica Lynch, bombings in Baghdad that Iraq did, the whole thing—and then you look at their press conferences—for example, in my report I have one from early war and one from late war—and the answer you get is less than 50 percent of the topics on which they talked during that press conference were truth. So, in other words, when we get to the point that less than 50 percent of what we hear in a Pentagon briefing is about truth, we’ve crossed a line.” —Sam Gardiner
One can usually best understand something by understanding what’s driving it: its driving and motivating force. In that vein, the foundation of the United States is—or has primarily become—a military and economic interlock: an oligarchy, driven by the desire for increasing the profit and power of a few—at the cost of the many.
“Roughly speaking, I think it’s accurate to say that a corporate elite of managers and owners governs the economy and the political system as well, at least in very large measure. The people, so-called, do exercise an occasional choice among those who Marx once called ‘the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling class.’” —Noam Chomsky
Have you ever wondered why hundreds of millions of dollars are generated and spent on political campaigns? Is it the poor who provide the lion’s share of this money, or is it the wealthy? Why do corporations and the wealthy spend so much money on political campaigns? Is it because they have a personal preference for a certain candidate, or is it to convince the masses that the politicians will act in the public’s favor when actually they will act in favor of the wealthy, who footed their campaign bill and enabled them to get elected in the first place?
“From its start in 1920, the League of Women Voters aimed to inform people about the issues at stake in elections—to open lines of communication between the electorate and candidates for public office. Beholden to no political party, the League has for 68 years been looked to for the even-keeled information voters need around election time. … Between themselves, the [presidential] campaigns had determined what the television cameras could take pictures of. They had determined how they would select those who would pose questions to their candidates. They had determined that the press would be relegated to the last two rows of the hall. They had determined that they would pack the hall with their supporters. And they had determined the format. The campaigns' agreement was a closed-door masterpiece. … We could sign their closed-door agreement and hope the event would rise above their manipulations. Or we could refuse to lend our trusted name to this charade. The League of Women Voters is announcing today that we have no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.” —League of Women Voters (1988)
“What people don’t see is that behind the scenes the debates are controlled by a corporate-funded entity. Third party and independent candidates are arbitrarily required to be polling at 15% according to 5 national polls in order to participate in the debates, even though these third parties are forced to devote all resources to get on the ballot in all 50 states during the months leading up to the debates—costing well over a million dollars.” —Ralph Nader (2008)
Indeed, what grassroots—that is, people’s—candidate could compete with subservient politicians who are willing to dance to the tune of wealthy sponsors and, thereby, gain millions, if not tens or even hundreds of millions, of dollars for their political campaigns?
“When you exclude third parties from the election process, third parties that the vast majority of Americans would like to see in the presidential debates, you’re not only denying those people the right to choose who they want to run for president and who they want to vote for, but you’re denying the very fundamental and critical issues that, in a generative democracy, we need to have aired in from of tens of millions of voters.” —George Farah
Further, why are billions of dollars spent every year on lobbying? Do you think corporations and the wealthy would continue this lavish spending if it did not give them more in return? Where is this “more in return” coming from? And how much more are we talking about? Who is really footing the bill? Is it really the corporations and the wealthy, or is it the average consumer and taxpayer?
“Since the deregulatory splurge of the 1990s began, the financial industry has donated almost $600 million to both parties—splitting their donations almost 50-50. That includes an astounding $9.8 million to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, and $6.8 million to Republican nominee John McCain. On top of that is another $500 million dollars in lobbying expenditures in the last decade. Thanks to the proposal’s omissions, those expenditures could generate a $700 billion return on worthless mortgage investments—well above the 100-to-1 ratio of return on investment that lobbying expenditures typically reap corporate clients in Washington.” —David Sirota
“Well, I always say that Republicans are 95% corrupt, and the Democrats are 75% corrupt. And the level of corruption reflects the amount of money, of corporate money, they’re taking.” —Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The Democrats and the Republicans, indeed, are two ideological factions that connive together to preserve, protect, and defend the interests of the most wealthy against the interests of the vast majority.
If it was known in David Hume’s time that “…FORCE is always on the side of the governed…,” do you think that the ruling class would have an interest in studying how best to compel a population to consent to its authority? How far along do you think they have gotten in these studies since then? How does it feel to be psychologically studied and then exploited in such a way?
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology… Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part… It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. … Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” —Bertrand Russell
We now live in a time of governmental effrontery in the form of shameless hypocrisy, audacious duplicity, and treasonous lies—without much of anything but deference from the mainstream press, which is officially the public’s watchdog but is, instead, owned by and dependent on wealthy paymasters. The propaganda machine against the public is now so powerful that, to illustrate, even after years of openly conceding that the claims used to launch a war—that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and Al-Qaeda connections—were false, half the American public still believes them.
“Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” —François de La Rochefoucauld
Worse, Machiavellian leaders are not only playing most people like fiddles, they’re developing them like fiddles too. Using mainstream education, religion, and media, these leaders train and conduct their “public” orchestra. Take, for example, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). By its widespread use of Establishment-standardized multiple-choice exams, NCLBA discourages reason and originality as irrelevant and rewards regurgitation and conformity as success. The public school system has, however, long before the NCLBA been an adherent to Establishment information and criteria. The NCLBA is just the latest and greatest system to condition children into adults who exhibit an apathetic and submissive acceptance of the Establishment. More and more, the result is an artificial representative republic: where the vast majority of people, not even realizing that their voice is considered irrelevant, is played along to the Establishment’s synthesized music, which merely simulates, or counterfeits, representation. Only the people not playing along to the Establishment tune begin to realize how much the public’s voice is drowned out.
“America is a country where our leaders dishonestly invoke the concepts of ‘Statesmanship’ and ‘Seriousness’ and their supposed hatred of ‘pandering’ to justify ignoring what the public wants (as if giving the public what it wants is somehow not the objective of a democratic republic).” —David Sirota
One of the primary methods used to dupe the American public is, quite simply, distraction. (When you’re being distracted, isn’t it prudent to check to make sure that no one is trying to steal your wallet?) Today, we have cell phones, computers, Internet access, emails, iPods, text messaging, computer games, chat rooms, radios, TVs, TiVo, DVDs, HDTV, hundreds of channels, countless shows, news, movies, sports, religion, politics, weather, fashion, gossip, shopping, advertisements, and materialism—not to mention work/school, families, medicines, health concerns, medical appointments, vacations/trips, homes, cars, bills, finances, investments, insurance, debts, and taxes. With all this, who has time for awareness, organizing, protest, and activism? “Are you keeping busy? That’s good”—well, maybe not. “Work hard, play hard”: stay stupid?
Science, it must be said, has found that around 20% of people are extremely suggestible: they can be led to believe almost anything. And peer pressure, of at least three other people, will cause about 33% of people—and will influence about 75% of people—to agree, even with something that is obviously false. So the media, by communicating directly and repeatedly to people and by deciding who and what gets on air and who and what doesn’t, massively controls public opinion. This is the power of the media. Media is not only crucial for politicians to get elected, but even more important for the rich and powerful, who have the means to own mainstream media, to hold great sway over public opinion, politicians, and, through them, public policy—all of which has a gigantic effect on the rich and powerful’s, well, wealth and power.
“As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.” —John Dewey
The most profound method used to fool and control the American public, however, is through accentuating and exploiting people’s tribal instincts: to get people to think and act based on tribal instincts rather than civilized reason. This is done so effectively in America that most people actually confuse tribalism for morality itself. But don’t be fooled; at the root of morality lies compassion, not fear: fear is no virtue.
Compassion causes a person to be concerned with the welfare of other people, from being able to put himself or herself in another person’s shoes, to identify with the other person (technically through mirror neurons). Feelings, such as pain and happiness, are transmitted from one person to another by merely recognizing the other person’s condition. Hence, compassion causes people to view the world as a heterogeneous mix of people, each with his or her own unique story, who cooperate with one another for mutual benefit. For compassionate people, the basic philosophy is to treat each person how you would like to be treated if you were him or her. This is the foundation of morality; it is relatively simple in its ideological manifestations. It leads to a desire to help provide protection, resources (through sharing), freedom, fairness, equality, and independence for each person.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” —The Declaration of Independence
On the other hand, tribalism, which many people in the United States confuse for morality, derives from fear. Fear causes a person to desire strength and power, for protection. Now, since tribalism is just self-interest writ large, tribalism causes people to see their society in a Darwinian struggle against other societies. For fearful people, the basic philosophy is to increase the society’s strength and power, for joint protection. This is the foundation of tribalism; it is relatively complex in its ideological manifestations. It leads to a desire to help provide unity, cohesion, authority, hierarchy, duty, loyalty, discipline, dependence, self-sacrifice, productivity, reciprocity (market), purity, sanctity, tradition, dogmatism, discrimination (such as racism), and nationalism for the society.
“And unfortunately for everyone across the political spectrum, the religious right, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, redefined patriotism in ways that would have appalled Paine, Jefferson, Washington, and Adams—not to mention the Republican president Abraham Lincoln. ‘Patriotism’ became identified with blind loyalty and a sense that America is innately better than the rest of the world. So today, we often believe that we as Americans are ‘the Elect’—a special, almost a chosen, people, who are uniquely entitled to a place in the sun. Where did that idea originally come from? For it is actually a direct heresy against the founders’ intent. The founders did not create liberty for America, but America for liberty, which they understood as part of universal law.” —Naomi Wolf
When tribalism gets confused for morality, a nation turns away from the high ideals of truth and individual well-being toward a base desire for power and group strength. This fall, from the precipice of confused morality, can ruin the body of a nation. People’s philosophies get twisted: the ends justify the means, truth becomes irrelevant, and reason a detriment. Who needs truth, accountability, and reason when the goal is strength and power? People’s mental grasp on reality can also be broken. Who can doubt the power of myth to bring about cohesion to a people? What better way is there to bind for unity and separate for identity than a belief in the unbelievable—a belief that is blind and closed, not a matter of understanding and insight? As tribalism gets confused for morality, the society simultaneously becomes ready for Machiavellian leaders, who have no scruples about feigning religious beliefs and patriotic desires, to ride the nation into the ground.
Enter self-serving public servants, Constitution-tearing conservatives, money-hoarding televangelists, and child-molesting priests. They epitomize the opposite of what they purport to be. Dependent on their follower’s forgiveness, forgetfulness, or ignorance, and their follower’s support, many live the very definition of hypocrisy. Worse, they convince their followers that good and evil are black and white, however these hypocrites define this distinction, and that the seeds of dissent and doubt can cost their followers the very keys to worldly security and blissful eternity. This is an insidious set of mentally coercive conditions. For example, their followers are told, in effect, to accept their own thought police: to squash their own dissent and doubt—or they imperil their chances for safety and Heaven. They are then told to blindly accept their leader’s definition of good and evil. Is there any wonder why these followers seem to be intellectually impervious and infinitely credulous? Clearly, such a system is extremely apt, if not designed, to impose consent—that is, social control—for the political and/or religious establishments.
Although many people would see that the demanded choices are false choices, many more would not. Kept uninformed and dumbed-down by mainstream media and institutions about critical issues, most Americans live in an artificial world of misdirection and misinformation. They are informational victims. In a studied, designed, and sophisticated system, they stay in the dark and stay in support of the Establishment—as Establishment pawns and dupes. This conditioning runs so deep that most Americans, if exposed to conspiratorial truth, will instantaneously or categorically deny it, rather than seriously consider it. Given that conspiracy is an everyday fact of life—as illustrated by bribery, common-law conspiracy (to rob a bank or to murder, for example), obstruction of justice, and anti-trust—this is a scary statement about the current state of American psychology.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.” —Adam Smith
But there is a worse condition than being mentally coerced, uninformed, or confused about morality and tribalism, a worse type of person, in fact. This type of person is called an authoritarian: the same type of person who followed and empowered Adolf Hitler. And frighteningly, about 23% of Americans fall into this category. What helps to develop this type of person is abuse, strict parenting, or alienation during childhood or adolescence; a predisposition towards fear; and cognitive inflexibility. These people don’t like to hear another point of view nor like to think independently; they quickly subscribe to authority viewpoints. They are often arrogantly ignorant, bullies, and persecutors of people who they view as different. Although authoritarians are typically conservative or religious, their leaders are often amoral and just use patriotism and religion as a manipulative tool on their followers.
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” —Sinclair Lewis
Who are these Machiavellian leaders? Who told us that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”; that Saddam Hussein had connections to Al-Qaeda; that the war in Iraq would take weeks, not months; that “free trade” was good for everybody in America; that climate change wasn’t natural; that the United States economy didn’t need regulation? Who are behind these lies and illusions?
Starting out long ago in that dishonorable but lucrative profession of usury and then banking, human parasites in the body of society are now using corruption, deceit, and psychology to operate a world-wide system of economic and social injustice. The immense resources gained by these people have allowed them to slowly and silently corrupt and take over the primary control structures of the United States: the government and most of the largest, most socially important corporations and organizations. These human parasites view society simultaneously as both host and enemy.
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” —John Philpot Curran
Overwhelmingly seduced and twisted by their great and growing power, profits, and pleasures, these people came to accept that they live by societal manipulation and deceit and came to justify it with the amoral and compassionless drive of evolution: they became sociopathic supremacists. To prevent society from discovering their evil ways and from removing them like a cancer, they knew that their corruption and power must continually spread until they could mentally, physically, and militarily control society permanently.
These sociopathic supremacists found many extremely effective methods to hide their institutionalized corruption. They found, for example, that big lies are much more unbelievable to people than small ones: the bigger the lie, the better (as far as its unbelievability). Further, making the truth contrary to societal norms, conventions, and/or expectations makes the truth that much more difficult to believe. A typical way to hide something reprehensible, therefore, is to give it the superficiality, the cover, of being or doing the opposite of the truth. Anybody bringing up the contradiction, even with clear evidence, would naturally sound a bit loony. To illustrate, imagine telling someone that the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, and then giving the reasons of how it contradicts the Constitution.
“So it is that democracy without honest information creates the illusion of popular consent while enhancing the power of the state and the privileged interests protected by it. Democracy without accountability creates the illusion of popular control while offering ordinary Americans only cheap tickets to the balcony, too far away to see that the public stage has become just a reality TV set. Nothing more characterizes corporate media today, mainstream and partisan, than disdain toward the fragile nature of modern life and indifference toward the complex social debate required of a free and self-governing people.” —Bill Moyers
Even better for the Sociopathic Supremacists was to gain control over mass media and education. These are used not only to manipulate society’s norms, conventions, and expectations, to make certain hidden truths even more unbelievable, but also to manipulate society’s knowledge and perceptions, to help control public ignorance, public awareness, public opinion, and hence, democratic institutions. Because these manipulations can cause such deep, pervasive, and inextricable influences in a person, the long-term ingraining of people with distraction, disinformation, and propaganda—that is, the manipulation of society through the abuse of mass media and education—could easily be called mass brainwashing.
“John Dewey, the educator said, no, no, let the free press report the truth to the American people and the needs will be reflected, to the congressmen and senators in Washington. And he was right. But they’re not telling the truth anymore. They all were doing the headlines rather than headway. They’re all getting by with perceptions; they’re all getting by with pollster politics. They’re not talking about the needs.” —Ernest Hollings
“Here’s an example. While stuck at a Greyhound bus station last month, I had the dubious fortune of watching fours hours of unrelenting election coverage on national television. A dozen different pundits, bloggers, and politicos came on, ostensibly to discuss pressing issues in the campaign. The strange thing was, not one of those speakers addressed a single substantive issue. Instead, they spouted strategy and traded in trivia: who had collected the most money, who was or wasn’t wearing a flag pin, the effect smiling had on a candidate’s electability. This is the national network news, the place where millions of Americans get their information on critical issues. Yet in an election year when so much is at stake—when we have to make decisions about war, recession, healthcare, poverty, and global warming—we are being given virtually no valuable information that could help us make good decisions. As Bill Moyers reminds us in ‘Moyers on America,’ the media aren’t so much biased as they are plain bad. Not only do they commit egregious errors of omission—refusing to cover third-party candidates and failing to convey the context of a situation—they also fail to fact-check the information they present, choosing instead to quote from two equally vapid and opposing sources and then hastily ending their reports.” —Ralph Nader
Consider the situation regarding the Vietnam War in 1969. Pretty much the harshest critic of this war in the mainstream press would say that the U.S. started out with blundering efforts to do good but the war just became too costly to continue. A poll, however, showed that about 70% of the American people felt that the Vietnam War was fundamentally wrong and immoral and not a mistake. How could the mainstream press be so disciplined and diligent in failing to reflect American opinion (and in failing to do so, misuse our publicly owned airwaves)?
“[M]aking disparate facts make sense—is a big part of the real work of journalism… [Y]ou know that you are entitled to news media as diverse and varied as the American people and that you deserve a press that provides the raw material of democracy, the good information that Americans need to be full participants in our government of, by, and for the people.” —Dan Rather
Even history is altered. Consider the following question. If the government can print money, why is it in debt? Amazingly, there is no good answer. The natural and constitutional power of the government to create money was, in 1913, abdicated to private banks: the (duplicitously named) Federal Reserve System, the real owners of which are unknown. Now, instead of the government simply creating money, it moronically only borrows it. (Note that this has nothing to do with inflation, as this concerns only the method, not the amount, of money creation.) Did you further know that personal income tax, also created in 1913, is not only unconstitutional—as it is a direct, unapportioned tax—but only used to pay the interest on the resulting and needless federal debt? Did you ever learn about these shocking facts in the Establishment education system? Have you ever heard about them in mainstream news or documentaries? I wonder why…
“To tell you the honest truth, I don’t really have a lot of respect for intellectuals. I mean history is written by intellectuals, by definition. So if you look at the history of intellectuals, intellectual history, they look pretty good. But you have to ask who’s writing the history. If you look at the actual history, it’s quite different. The actual history of intellectuals is quite sordid. Overwhelmingly, there are exceptions, but overwhelmingly intellectuals have been supporters of state violence, of terror, power, atrocities, and so on. There’s usually a margin of dissidents, a fringe of intellectuals who condemn these crimes, and they are usually treated pretty badly. How badly they’re treated depends on the society, so in El Salvador they had their brains blown out. In Eastern Europe in the same years, they were imprisoned and exiled. In the United States, I say Russell and others, are vilified and denounced. But overwhelmingly, the intellectuals supported power. I mean, after all, that was true in Eastern Europe too. There were well-known dissidents, but they were by no means the majority. Most intellectuals were subordinate to power, the same in the United States, the same almost everywhere. In fact, this goes back through history as far back as you can go. So just to take one example, which then perpetuates itself though history, take the oldest historical records, actually partly invented because it’s folk history, take the Bible. Let’s consider it to be a historical record. There were intellectuals: they were called prophets. The word ‘prophet’ is a bad translation of an obscure Hebrew word: if you look at the prophets, they were what we would call dissident intellectuals. They were carrying out geopolitical critique of power, they were warning the kings that they were bringing disaster to the people, they were calling for justice, proper treatment of suffering people—widows and orphans and so on—they were typical of what we nowadays call dissident intellectuals. How were they treated? Well, we know from the biblical record, they were imprisoned, they were driven into the desert, they were vilified and attacked. Centuries later, many centuries later, they were honored, but that’s centuries later. At the actual time of the prophets, there were others, other intellectuals, who were very much honored: they were the flatterers at the court. Centuries later, they were criticized as false prophets, but not at the time. At the time, the flatterers at the court were the one who were honored and received the privileges. The critics were very harshly treated. History’s judgment, centuries later, was the opposite, but that’s not at the time. And that pattern perpetuates itself pretty well through history. And there’s a reason for it. How do you become an intellectual? I mean, it’s not that you have different genes. Being an intellectual means sharing in a certain amount of privilege. You have the privilege to be able to speak too—you have training, education, resources—you can have opportunities to speak and act that most people don’t have. You know, it’s pretty typical for privilege and power to be associated with conformity and obedience, people who—there is, throughout the whole educational system, there is a kind of selection for obedience—people who are properly obedient tend to get ahead and get to the next stage and go on to the professions and so on. People who are dissident, who just refuse—as children would, say—to obey, people who stand up and tell the history teacher I’m not going to do this assignment, because it’s too stupid, those people tend to get/have/face problems. They’re, in the United States, they’re called behavior problems, and maybe given pills or something like that. But there are rarely any rewards for honesty, integrity, challenge, and so on. But there are always rewards, almost always rewards, for obedience and subordination. So there’s a tendency over time, not a 100 percent, but there’s a tendency for those who make it to the level of intellectual prestige, there’s a tendency for them to be people who have accepted the discipline imposed at every stage of a system that has hierarchy and authority. And every system has some level of that. So I don’t think there’s much of a surprise, if you actually look at history, this is almost always true. Let’s take the Dreyfus Affair in France, which is almost the origin of modern intellectuals, well, the way history’s written, it looks as though the French intellectuals were strongly supporting Dreyfus. You look at the actual history, it was not like that at all. There was a fringe of people, like Émile Zola, who were defending Dreyfus, most of them were supporting state power. But the history is reshaped. And just about everything you look at is like this.” —Noam Chomsky
Truly, if you have been inundated with mainstream education or media, then you are much more brainwashed than you would, or probably could, believe. It’s the underlying values and assumptions that are being transmitted, that fly below people’s radar, that are the most dangerous. Take, for example, the phrase “conspiracy [which is just an agreement between people to do something illegal] theory [which should be judged on its evidence].” Just this phrase triggers categorical denial or derision in many people, though perhaps only in subservient people who unquestioningly accept authoritarian systems.
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” —George W. Bush
Perhaps this is an inherent vulnerability of society, using individual and group psychology to manipulate people while hiding this fact from them. To a certain extent, it is like we are all on drugs and under water. Our deepest values and assumptions about the world—which filter, shade, and define our reality—are modified or created through Establishment objects: toys, TV shows, movies, marketing, reports, documentaries, books, articles, etc. These objects can also be used to exacerbate our self-interest, materialism, apathy, fear, anger, racism, nationalism, and militarism. Indeed, how exactly did it become acceptable to many Americans for the U.S. to invade the independent nation of Iraq when it was not directly in our self-defense, for the U.S. to make our contractors there immune from Iraqi law, and for the U.S. to continue to occupy Iraq against the will of the vast majority of the Iraqi people?
The evidence, which I just summarize in this section, includes independent, not just mainstream, media. Click on a sentence to investigate this evidence.
U.S. media corporations and the government have left the public unbelievably susceptible to governmental and corporate censorship and propaganda.Investigate With this wool pulled over the eyes of the public, secretive elements within the government conducted the events of 9/11.Investigate George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, now unequivocal war criminals, then used 9/11 to unconstitutionally violate national and international law and launch wars of aggression in the Middle East—based on lies and false evidence—at a cost of at least a million people dead.Investigate However, this is just a small piece of the tip of the iceberg. Although the highest authorities in this country are We the People and the Constitution, the executive branch of the government has, for a long time, committed treason against both by selling foreign and domestic policies, violating people’s civil liberties, smuggling drugs, stealing international resources, rigging elections, overthrowing democratic governments, installing puppet governments and repressive dictators, terrorizing and torturing civilians, assassinating leaders, conducting secret wars, employing death squads, and causing civilian slaughters.Investigate
“I mean there were planning sessions of high State Department officials and Council on Foreign Relations—it’s the main, so-called private, input into foreign affairs. They were having study groups from 1939 through 1945, in which they recognized, clearly, that the US would emerge from the Second World War as the world dominant power, and they made extensive plans about how it should use that power. And if you look at the years that followed—when many of the same people were in government, in corporations, in planning and decision-making positions—in various ways they implemented similar plans. And it continues pretty much until the present. Now of course plans always change, circumstances change, you need different tactics, there are different pretexts, and so on, but the basic themes remain pretty much the way they were articulated in the war-time studies groups, of which we have the documents, you can read them. And they’re not terribly surprising; they are that, the basic idea is that the United States should create a system of global order, extending as far as possible, which would operate for the benefit of privileged sectors of power within the United States, and their counterparts elsewhere. Well, that means primarily the corporate sector, which pretty much dominates American society and is closely linked to similar sectors in other societies. And that means a world of a kind of liberal internationalism in which countries are compelled, in one way or another, to subordinate themselves to the economic and political and social arrangements that are supportive of US-power interests. That means opportunities to invest, exploitation of the populations, access to resources and markets, control of the central resources—like energy. It was understood, clearly in the Second World War and before, that the control of the energy resources of the world is a major instrument of global power. The Middle East oil-producing regions were described in the mid-1940s as ‘a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the great material prizes in world history’: the most strategically important part of the world. And of course, the US was going to take control over that. That’s what a lot of contemporary developments are about. That’s a major theme that runs through the whole period. Europe and Japan had to be reconstructed in certain ways, in ways which undermine the labor movements from the left and restored the traditional societies pretty much. With regard to the third world, it simply had to be kept under control. So if moves toward independent development took place, they had to be stopped. And if it looked as if they might be successful, and influence others, they might be what planners call ‘a virus that might infect others.’ Then, they have to be really destroyed. And so we have a brutal history of intervention and violence to try to ensure that the South will subordinate itself to the interests of the major sectors of power in the rich, developed countries, and the United States is foremost among them. I mean, those are basic themes of policy. They don’t explain everything that happens, but policy rarely departs very far from those major themes. Now they can be implemented in different ways: so if the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration are not identical—they’re somewhat different, in fact, in the ways they proceed—but the basic dominating themes have not changed very much.” —Noam Chomsky
Unwittingly, we are in the middle of a nightmarishly sophisticated and unconscionable war for global domination.Investigate If We the People lose this war of genocide that is being waged against us, it will result in the death or enslavement of us all.Investigate
Paraphrasing Martin Luther King, Jr., the Establishment is on the side of the wealthy, while it creates a hell for the poor; men and women are constantly beaten and robbed by the Establishment as they make their journey on life’s highway. In other words, the (rich-controlled) Establishment beats and robs everyone else to give to the rich. The combined wealth of 95% of the world’s population is now less than that of the richest 1%; the combined wealth of 3,000,000,000 people is less than that of the richest 350. Just in the United States, 13,000,000 children go to sleep hungry each night, and around 18,000 people die each year from lack of health care. Our recent international wars are also domestic wars against the poor: they give the Establishment an excuse to reduce or cut our domestic programs and they disproportionately send the poor off to get maimed or killed in battle.
“How is it that the gap between the rich and poor here in the United States is the highest ever recorded and higher than in every other wealthy industrialized nation?” —Amy Goodman
“Today, 1 in 5 American children live in poverty, and authorities from the Economist magazine to the Wall Street Journal note that our country exhibits the least amount of upward economic mobility in the industrialized world—less than even Europe’s supposedly sclerotic socialisms.” —David Sirota
The U.S. spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined. Military profiteering would not explain this because other countries would be spending a lot on the military too, but they’re not. The best explanation that fits all the data points is that the Establishment has plans to use the United States military to threaten, or take over, the rest of the world.
“[N]one of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. … A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, ‘This way of settling differences is not just.’ This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” —Martin Luther King, Jr.
The evidence shows that the Sociopathic Supremacists are mass profiteers, polluters, marauders, and murderers: barbarians with immense money and power. They have no love for the United States; they want to destroy it and turn it into an instrument of evil. We have been lied to and betrayed. If we don’t stand up to them, the Sociopathic Supremacists will tear us asunder. Behind our backs, they laugh at us. They think that we are stupid. They disrespect us and our highest ideals: equality, justice, liberty, representation, fairness, truth, honor, generosity, empathy, compassion, dignity, and love.
“And how will the new republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only after a second century has passed, establish a world state with a common language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social efficiency unpleasant and difficult… The Jew will probably lose much of his particularism, intermarry with Gentiles, and cease to be a physically distinct element in human affairs in a century or so. But much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die. … And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency? Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go.” —H. G. Wells
“The true objection to slavery is not that it is unjust to the inferior but that it corrupts the superior. There is only one sane and logical thing to be done with a really inferior race, and that is to exterminate it. Now there are various ways of exterminating a race, and most of them are cruel. You may end it with fire and sword after the old Hebrew fashion; you may enslave it and work it to death, as the Spaniards did the Caribs; you may set it boundaries and then poison it slowly with deleterious commodities, as the Americans do with most of their Indians; you may incite it to wear clothing to which it is not accustomed and to live under new and strange conditions that will expose it to infectious diseases to which you yourselves are immune, as the missionaries do the Polynesians; you may resort to honest simple murder, as we English did with the Tasmanians; or you can maintain such conditions as conduce to ‘race suicide,’ as the British administration does in Fiji.” —H. G. Wells
“Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly. … The extermination of what the exterminators call inferior races is as old as history. ‘Stone dead hath no fellow’ said Cromwell when he tried to exterminate the Irish. ‘The only good nigger is a dead nigger’ say the Americans of the Ku-Klux temperament. ‘Hates any man the thing he would not kill?’ said Shylock naively. But we white men, as we absurdly call ourselves in spite of the testimony of our looking glasses, regard all differently colored folk as inferior species. Ladies and gentlemen class rebellious laborers with vermin. The Dominicans, the watchdogs of God, regarded the Albigenses as the enemies of God, just as Torquemada regarded the Jews as the murderers of God. All that is an old story: what we are confronted with now is a growing perception that if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.” —George Bernard Shaw
Clearly, the Sociopathic Supremacists want to own the world and have us as their slaves. Can you imagine the vast majority of the world’s population slowly dying off from high food prices, famines, terrorism, plagues, and wars—all courted or created by the Sociopathic Supremacists. The remaining fraction of humanity would be eventually fooled and/or forced by the Sociopathic Supremacists into accepting police states and then, when their absolute rule is assured, into only compact cities of slaves, who will have no real hope for awareness, wisdom, or mental or physical control over their lives. The living body of society will be turned into a harmless carcass that the Sociopathic Supremacists will forever feed off of.
We Americans need to realize that less than six hundred puppet politicians are oppressing more than three hundred million of us. It’s time to remove the Sociopathic Supremacists for good: for our children’s sake. As Cicero said, “The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.”
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” —The Declaration of Independence
We need a righteous wave of awareness and indignation to wash over us. With people knowing, having a sense of injustice, and being able to mobilize together, to rally together, we will win.Investigate Considering that there are only six degrees of separation between all of us, here are seven options of what we can each do to help win our fight for freedom:
"Because I'm holding a thermal detonator." --Princess Leia