All You Need To Know

As you know: In the face of public outrage over -- and House rejection of -- the Bush administration's attempt at a $700 billion extortion -- a "gift" of your money to the very same people who have caused a global financial crisis -- administration hacks reacted in predictable fashion, throwing in another $100 billion worth of bribes in a shameless bid to get the bill passed.

Then the Senate approved, by a 3-1 margin, a thrown-together 450-page bill that few of them could have had time to read, much less consider.

Consider? No other options were considered at all, or even deemed worthy of consideration. And suddenly all the pressure was on the House.

The phones were ringing off the hook in the offices of "our" "Representatives", with public sentiment more or less equally divided between "NO!" and "HELL, NO!"

But the House passed the bill anyway.

This tells you all you need to know.

They don't care what you think. They don't have to. You're only a voter. There's a good chance that they can control the way you think, and thus the way you vote. And even if they can't do that, they can still control the way your vote is counted. Ever since they learned how to do these two things -- perception management and election rigging -- they haven't had to care about you one way or the other. Not that they ever did. They never cared about you -- not a bit. The difference now is that they don't even have to pretend anymore.

Meanwhile, very quietly, Congress allocated at least $448 billion (or maybe even $615 billion) of your money for another year of death and destruction -- anywhere, anytime, and preferably by remote control, if the monsters-in-command have their way.

We don't want this. Some of us have never wanted this; others have just recently realized that they've had enough. But our "elected" "representatives" don't care. They don't have to. And they don't even mind if you know it.

We have no money for health care. We have no money for education. We have no money to fix our roads and bridges, and we especially have no money for the people who have lost everything they owned, to hurricanes or predatory lending schemes or medical bills. And yet we have hundreds of billions every year for killing people, and hundreds of billions more for ... for what, exactly?

Except that we don't have the money; we'll be borrowing all that money just to give it away, and paying interest on it forever. It's an enormous "gift" from us and our children and their children, a gift we have been (or will be) forced to "give".

And the rich will get richer, and the poor will get slaughtered, and if you are an American taxpayer, you will pay for it. That's the New American Deal -- the economic setup for the New American Century.

Comparisons have been made between this "financial crisis" and the "terrorist attacks" of 9/11 -- and rightly so, in some cases. But 9/11 was simply the opening move of the GWOT, and this "crisis" is more like 9/11 than like the GWOT itself. In other words, the fallout from this "rescue" will almost certainly make the original crisis look like just another drop in the ocean -- an ocean of blood and pain and death.

The point is: both were inside jobs, perpetrated with full assistance of the national media by people who know exactly what they're doing, and how to exploit all the ignorance and fear that they were creating, and how to do it again -- whenever they want to.

As far as I can tell, we have three choices: get rid of it, get used to it, or get out.

Getting rid of it would require forces which do not currently exist, aligning themselves in ways that would never be permitted. This option is theoretical at this point, and getting more so all the time -- unless I am very wrong, which I once dared to hope I might be.

Getting used to it ... well, people can adapt to a remarkable variety of conditions, if they want to, or if they are forced to.

Getting out: When I was a kid, the people protesting against the war in Vietnam were always taunted with the chant "Love It Or Leave It!" I thought that was pretty good advice at the time, and I still do.

Just coincidentally [?] I've been re-reading "The Selling of the President 1968", by Joe McGinniss. It's an inside look at the advertising campaign that got Richard Nixon elected president, and I will probably write more about it soon. But for now I want to leave you with a conversation between McGinniss and Eugene Jones, the film-maker who was hired to make Nixon look like the answer to America's troubles 40 years ago.

Joe McGinniss:

One night, toward the end of the campaign, as he sat in his office, Gene Jones said, "Look, I get it from my friends, too. I go to a party and the first thing everybody wants to know is, how can you work for that fascist bastard."

He shrugged.

"I'm a professional. This is a professional job. I was neutral towards Nixon when I started. Now I happen to be for him. But that's not the point. The point is, for the money I'd do it for almost anybody."

"My one qualm about Nixon," Gene Jones said, "is that I'm not sure he's got the sensitivity he should. To Appalachia, to the slums, to the poverty and destitution that reside there. I don't know whether as a human being he's actually got that sensitivity.

"I hope he has, because it's really awful, when you think of all the things wrong inside this country now. The hatred, the violence, the cities gone to hell. And the war. All our kids getting killed in that goddamned war."

He stood, ready to go upstairs, to the third-floor production room, to touch up one of the final spots.

"What are you going to do when this is all over?" I said.

"Move out."

"Yes, I know you're leaving this studio, but I mean where are you going to work next, what are you going to do?"

"No, I didn't mean move out of the studio," he said. "I mean move out of the country. I'm not going to live here anymore."

"What?"

"I've bought myself some land in the Caribbean -- on the island of Montsarrat -- and that's where I'm going as soon as this is over."

"Permanently?"

"Yes, permanently," he said. And then he talked about the direct plane service from Montsarrat to New York, Toronto, and London, and how America was no place to bring up kids anymore. And all this against the background of the commercials he had made: with the laughing, playing children and the green green grass and the sunsets and Richard Nixon saying over and over again what wonderful people we all were and what a wonderful place we lived in.

"... I really don't see any choice," Gene Jones said. "I mean, I don't want my kids growing up in an atmosphere like this."

Then he excused himself and went upstairs.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

They'll Do It Every Time: The National Nightmare Goes On And On And On

Back in June, when Israeli President Moshe Katsav resigned rather than face trial in a sex scandal, Larisa Alexandrovna quoted Carolynn Wheeler's "Israeli President will avoid jail in sex scandal" (and the emphasis is Larisa's):

For the first time in Israeli history, the President will resign, caught in a sex scandal that has rocked the country and damaged the public's faith in its government.

But Moshe Katsav, a married father of five who has held the largely ceremonial post since 2000, will avoid jail time in a surprise plea bargain announced yesterday by the country's Attorney-General and widely condemned by women's rights groups.

Instead, by resigning his post and pleading guilty to three lesser charges of indecent assault, sexual harassment and intimidation of a witness, he will receive a suspended sentence and be required to compensate his victims.

"It was important to spare Israel from seeing a president on trial," Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz said at a press conference announcing the deal, which had been inked only moments before. "From the status of the state of Israel's No. 1 citizen, the President has descended to a person guilty of a sex offence, with all the personal and public disgrace which will accompany him."

Larisa continued:

I will never understand this point of view.

I was tempted to comment on that remark at the time, but I didn't.

Instead the thought stayed with me.

Larisa continued:

President Ford said of the Nixon-era:

"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy."

And then he pardoned the disgraced President Nixon in order to spare the public more heartache. But that decision set the country toward a course that led directly and invariably where we find ourselves today: with a paralyzed and compromised government, unable to check or balance itself.

Exactly. Larisa continued:

Why is it important to spare Israel from seeing the President on trial? Does this not put Mr. Katsav above the law because he is the President? If he were anyone else, would he have been put on trial? The Attorney General should be asked to resign over this and Katsav, should be put on trial so that Israeli citizens can decide for themselves if this man belongs behind bars or out on the streets.

I agree completely with Larisa about what should have happened. But I was struck by the place where she wrote:

I will never understand this point of view.

Never is a long, long time. Larisa is very bright. And to put it as plainly as possible, I think she was wrong.

It's pretty simple, really. Anybody can understand it. I think there are four essential points.

First: People don't always believe what they say, especially people in certain lines of work. We must remember this at all times.

Second: To the extent that they do believe it, it's a delusion. Powerful leaders often wind up confusing what is good for them personally with what is good for their countries. Thirty-five years ago, when Richard Nixon said "national security", he was referring to his continuing tenure in office.

Did Nixon really think the country would be less "secure" without himself in the Oval Office? Probably. Certainly the people around him understood what he meant. And some of them felt the same way.

There are two factors at work here. They owed their jobs (and prestige, etc.) to Nixon and his backers and they knew that if Nixon fell from power they would likely lose all that -- even if they weren't personally involved in the scandal that brought him down, and were in no danger of spending time in prison.

More generally, every leader depends on the continuing existence of the current system of governance for his position in society (and all that goes with it), and anything that throws the system into disrepute destabilizes him personally.

One could say that leaders identify their fortunes with the good of their country, but that's only half true. If a leader gets into personal trouble, he will always try to share that trouble on entire nation. But if something horrible happens to the nation, it's a rare leader who will accept any responsibility. You can think of this as a one-way street.

Third: To the extent that they don't actually believe it, they say it for our benefit. They want us to believe that the failings of a leader reflect badly on the people country, so that we will see ourselves as bearing a share of the responsibility. Because if we see ourselves as guilty -- for Watergate, or for Iraq, or for a collective case of rape -- then we are not as likely to demand any change in the system which puts madmen in power.

Fourth: It doesn't really matter whether they believe it or not. What matters is that we refuse to believe it, for it is poison.

Whenever a national leader is in trouble -- or on trial -- there is a slim chance that the entire system's moral and ethical bankruptcy will be exposed. Those who benefit most from the continuation of that system cannot allow this to happen. So they call their personal problem a "national nightmare" in the hope of making it go away faster. And sometimes it does.

But the real national nightmare goes on and on and on ... and sometimes it gets even worse.

Chris Floyd touched on this theme just a few hours ago:

The Democratic nominee looks certain to be Hillary Clinton -- whose husband buried a whole boatload of previous Bush crimes after he took office in 1993, as Robert Parry reports in his book, Secrecy and Privilege. If Clinton I had allowed justice to pursue the various Bush I scandals to the end, we would have been spared the hideous, murderous farce of Bush II's reign. The name of Bush would have been so rightly tainted that L'il Pretzel would never have gotten anywhere near close enough to steal the 2000 election. Is there anyone who believes that Clinton II would pursue Bush II's manifold crimes any more diligently than her husband? The Clintons and Bushes are so close now they'll probably be vacationing together after the election. "Hey, Hill, you gave me hell out there on the campaign trail -- and I wasn't even runnin', ha ha!" "Well, George, you know how the game is played. No hard feelings, ha ha ha!" "Naw, Hill, no sweat. Gimme another one them Coors there; thank god I don't have to pretend about booze anymore, ha ha! Say, where did Bill and Laura get off to....?"

No mainstream Democrat will ever allow full-fledged criminal investigations and prosecutions of Bush II officials for torture and the war crime of military aggression. You know and I know that's not going to happen. We will get, at most, some soaring rhetoric about "healing national wounds" and "coming together again" and "moving on." (With the outside possibility of a few small fry being offered up as sacrifices, to let the Dem president preen as the "restorer of the rule of law" -- and also purge the Republicans, and Bush, of the worst taint: "Hey, it was a few bad apples, and now they're gone. We've got a clean slate!")

And I agree with Chris, too.

But I was thinking of another example: Pakistan's President, General Pervez Musharraf.

In Pakistan, the Supreme Court seemed ready to rule that his October 6 "re-election" was illegal, and it certainly was, as everyone who had been watching the situation was well aware. (1, 2, 3, 4)

So on Saturday night Musharraf declared a state of emergency, as reported by Reuters:

"I cannot allow this country to commit suicide," he said in an address to the nation, after suspending the constitution and purging the Supreme Court of judges opposed to him.

Now: Do you think General Musharraf really believes this? Does he really equate his inevitable fall from power with national suicide?

And furthermore, what difference does it make?

You see? You really don't need to be as smart as Larisa to understand this point of view.