Wednesday, February 11, 2009


One looks at our modern world askance--

We can no longer look ahead with any confidence; the forces of freedom and equality have both failed primarily it would seem because of the economic strain which permeates both of them. Alas, Man must have commerce--he must work. At this point in time the world becomes a factory, nothing more than a repository of raw material that sustains our activity. Whatever else may be said of it, this world is finite: much of what sustains us has already been ripped from her bowels. Progress is still viable, but the idea of growth is a noose around our necks.

Fostered by the economic elitist who finds significance only in acquisition this pernicious doctrine of growth has led us to a cul-de-sac from which our whole civilization must be rethought. Profit can no longer be the primary motive; the illusion of "ownership" must be set aside. It must be recognized that greed wherever opportunity exists is the primary motivation in the way our society is structured today.

We are caught between the individual and collectivism, and on both ends of the spectrum the dialectic seems to be the rise of the corporate state; that is, the economic and political spheres are combined into one entity. What sort of tyranny we may expect from this development remains to be seen, though the oppression of the many by the few is a likely outgrowth, given our history.--As an aside, one might note that oppression need not be belligerent, a seemingly benign one works just as well and is even more insidious, leading as it does to a content populace which resists change, until the dominant minority oversteps its bounds, and even then years of inertia hampers any sort of rapid response--

What rises in reaction to the emergence of The Corporate State, which given our History must arise? The union is outlawed, at best under constant attack, and discredited; its members portrayed as reactionary--disloyal to the good of the company; religion is displaced as the dispenser of the Good, all sustenance resides in the generosity of the company, good behavior i.e. obedience, is rewarded by the company, and bad behavior casts one into the darkness of unperson--

What then arises to oppose this conglomerate incipient world state?

It may take various ideological stances depending upon its local necessities, indeed it may not have any clear cut ideology, it exists to oppose--the local papers define it as "terrorism"--tho its practitioners may view themselves differently, ranging from revolutionary to holy warrior to freedom fighter. Depends upon your point of view I suppose; or who signs your paycheck if at this point in time that can be distinguished. Either way, as Orwell pointed out, the State must have an enemy to distract internal dissent.

As I began so I must conclude, askance--

For the "Terrorist" to be effective he must be armed, to be armed he must wield the fruits of the corporate state, that is to say he must be supplied by his enemy. Victory is not the goal, conflict is. Only through conflict can the dialectic be held in stasis, the ideological underpinnings of the corporate state will not stand scrutiny since that basis is only the perpetuation of a dominant minority which has endured since the dawn of the neolithic age.

How do we define madness, and who is it exactly who is mad?

1 comment:

Norman Ball said...

Tom, I am in broad agreement with this, and well-said I might add. Someone askd me the other day who the up and coming new demagogue might be. However the real dictatorship is institutional IMF-FED-World Bank-Money Center Banks. The personality(s) around which the cult will be arranged is something of a prurient biographical detail. They have the ability to make Donald Duck walk on water. With his faux-inclusiveness-veneer, Obama is a compelling candidate, especially since the second-leg of the disintegration will occur on his watch.

Here's my futurist take worth exactly what you pay for it....

We are reaching finitudes on numerous fronts: Peak Oil, 40% of the world's copper consumed, etc. It is a banker-fostered Ponzi myth that capitalism must be attended by growth. Or maybe it isn't. The whole modern capitalist era, going back 400 years, has been banker-fueled. Whether for good or ill, the rapidity of moderinization owes itself to the usuruous dynamic of banker-led capitalism. Maybe it needs to now politely wither away? Usury was a centuries-old sin across all Judeo-Christian traditions. Gordon Gekko only took it off the list in 1989.

First and foremost, growth is required to generate sufficient income to service a growing debt. Old regime debt must be repudiated. The amount of debt has so overshot the world's ability to pay, that the bankers' epic greed may yet be our way out. The numbers are absurdly large --unserviceable by any practical measure of the world's ability to labor beneath them. This may be GOOD news, although it is currently (and predictably) being couched as bad news, the end of the modern economy as we know it. Certainly it's a convenient ploy to lash the health of the banking sector to the future of civilization. But is it true or cunning hyperbole?

But first, Obama/Geithner are not the transformationel team that will make this happen. They are lapdogs to the banking class, more of the same. This System cannot heal itself. The solutions are exogenous to this System. The elite will not dismantle itself. Nor should we underestimate the willingness of an elite to grind 95% of population into Les Miserables deprivation.

Institutionalized usury conducted the world through the the Age of Exploration, mercantilism, the Industrial Revolution, the Information Age. Maybe I lack for imagination, but it seems the growth frontiers are not as boundless as before. Again I may lack for imagination here. There is alt energy clearly. I suppose my greatest fear is that the banking interests will enslave us to their crazy legacy debt before we can embark on these new frontiers with the full-force of human ingenuity. Are we going to invent new sources of clean energy or are we going to spend a century servicing the excesses of CDS'?

We're either going to get a revolution or a Soma-conducted dystopia (or is it a dystopia to 'us' and a utopia to 'them'?). I believe significant social unrest will arrive no later than 2010 in the US as the Depression kicks in. Frankly there will be a race betwen chaos and the efficacies of modern technologies to suppress dissent. They have the technology and the drugs today to have us enjoy our oppression rather nicely ala The Matrix. Viewed in this context, the early prototypes, blunt-force Mussolini-Franco fascism, were crude test-beds, interrupted works-in-pogress.

Look at Leni Riefenstahls's 'Triumph of the Will', with 1934-era media techniques; hardly a unevocative piece of work. Imagine a similar experience with the full-force of today's multimedia simulacra --and maybe some designer drugs tossed in for good measure. Such a thoroughly-modern spectacle would roll over the majority of the population. They will be tired anyway.

I view the Internet as the Underground Railroad. Thank God we have it. Let's see how long we can keep it. You can learn (or is it unlearn?) more on the Internet in a couple of months than you do from years of school and network documentaries. Already we are seeing early efforts to meter it. And cheap Wifi is being suppressed around the United States because no one can make money from it.

Strange times indeed.