Tag Archives: Power

Twelve Tips For Making Sense Of The World, by Caitlin Johnstone

These tips will stand you in pretty good stead. From Caitlin Johnstone at medium.com:

In an environment that is saturated with mass media propaganda, it can be hard to figure out which way’s up, let alone get an accurate read on what’s going on in the world. Here are a few tips I’ve learned which have given me a lot of clarity in seeing through the haze of spin and confusion. Taken separately they don’t tell you a lot, but taken together they paint a very useful picture of the world and why it is the way it is.

1. It’s always ultimately about acquiring power.

In the quest to understand why governments move in such irrational ways, why expensive, senseless wars are fought while homeless people die of exposure on the streets, why millionaires and billionaires get richer and richer while everyone else struggles to pay rent, why we destroy the ecosystem we depend on for our survival, why one elected official tends to advance more or less the same harmful policies and agendas as his or her predecessor, people often come up with explanations which don’t really hold water.

The most common of these is probably the notion that all of these problems are due to the malignant influence of one of two mainstream political parties, and if the other party could just get in control of the situation all the problems would go away. Other explanations include the belief that humans are just intrinsically awful, blaming minorities like Jews or immigrants, blaming racism and white supremacy, or going all the way down wild and twisted rabbit holes into theories about reptilian secret societies and baby-eating pedophile cabals. But really all of mankind’s irrational behavior can be explained by the basic human impulse to amass power and influence over one’s fellow humans, combined with the fact that sociopaths tend to rise to positions of power.

Our evolutionary ancestors were pack animals, and the ability to rise in social standing in one’s pack determined crucial matters like whether one got first or last dibs on food or got to reproduce. This impulse to rise in our pack is hardwired deeply into our evolutionary heritage, but when left unchecked due to a lack of empathy, and when expanded into the globe-spanning 7.6 billion human pack we now find ourselves in due to ease of transportation and communication, it can lead to individuals who will keep amassing more and more power until they wield immense influence over entire clusters of nations.

To continue reading: Twelve Tips For Making Sense Of The World

Advertisements

Place Your Bets, Hedge Your Bets, Winner Takes All, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Doug “Uncola” Lynn doubts that establishment power will be defeated, no matter how well-intentioned Trump might be. From Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.

― George Orwell, “1984”, part 3, chapter 3

In the eight days following Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential Election win, I wrote a series of three (3) articles based upon Charles Dicken’s literary classic, “A Tale of Two Cities”.  The first piece entitled “Best of Times Worst of Times” was a play-by-play of my own election night experience.  The second installment, entitled “A Tale of Two Cities” drew some comparisons between our modern times with Dickens’ major themes of “duality, revolution, and resurrection” against the backdrop of the burgeoning warfare between the aristocratic class and those of the peasants during the French Revolution.  And the third and final article concluded with these words:

 If Trump ushers in a return to constitutionalism, liberty and renewed nationalist vigor across the world; then let us tip our hats, drink wine and dance in the streets.

Conversely, if violent revolution consumes the nations, including America; the ensuing societal breakdown will lead to starvation, mob mentality, war, death, destruction and blood flowing in the streets of cities like wine from a broken cask.  Out of the complete chaos a new world order might then arise as a phoenix from the ashes of the old system still burning.

Will liberty be resurrected? Or tyranny?

There is no middle ground.

Me, “The Good, the Guilty and the Guillotine”, TheTollOnline.com, 11/16/2016

 

I am not linking these articles here because they are beside the point right now; other than, perhaps, my comparison of Trump in the third article to the biblical Samson tearing down the twin pillars of left and right in today’s American political system. Beyond that, however, I want to discuss specific Fourth Turning revolutions in relation to their cataclysmic dynamics of power.

To continue reading: Place Your Bets, Hedge Your Bets, Winner Takes All

He Said That? 6/29/17

From John Adams (1735-1826), American lawyer, author, statesman, and diplomat. He served as the second President of the United States (1797–1801), the first Vice President (1789–1797), and as a Founding Father was a leader of American independence from Great Britain. From notes for an oration at Braintree (Spring, 1772):

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Mao and the Middle Class: What’s the Source of Political Power? by Charles Hugh Smith

There’s more to power than the barrel of a gun. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

Force is not the same as power. If force fails to persuade, power evaporates.
The decline of middle class wealth and income is not just an economic trend–it translates directly to a decline in political power. Chairman Mao famously noted that “Political power grows out of the barrel of gun,”, but this is only true in specific circumstances, for reasons elucidated by author Edward Luttwak in his book The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire.
Luttwak delineated the difference between force and power. Force is what grows out of a barrel of a gun: the ability to coerce people to obey commands.
Force is expensive and labor-intensive. If you want to prohibit people from using alternative currencies or making black market trades, for example, you have to literally follow every individual, as black market transactions can occur virtually anywhere by pre-arrangement.
Forcing people not to horde scarce goods is another example.
Power manifests when people willingly obey or choose to comply. Although it’s tempting to boil power down to threats of punishment/death, history offers many examples of intensive repression and threats failing to translate force into power.
Filing tax returns is an example of low-cost compliance. The IRS audits and prosecutes relatively few taxpayers for non-compliance. The vast majority of people choose to comply without being forced to do so. This leverage is power.
Power ultimately flows from the populace’s belief that the state or other authority could deploy overwhelming force if necessary. The subject populace makes a mental calculation of risk and return, and concludes that the high risks and modest gains of non-compliance make compliance the wiser, lower risk choice.
We are seeing force and power playing out in the Brexit drama. The European Union needs to punish Britain for leaving the EU, as the ability to enforce a painful punishment on any nation leaving the union will communicate (like nothing else can) that there will be a high cost to exiting the EU.
If other nations believe they will share the same fate as Britain and thus decide to stay in the EU, the EU will be manifesting power. Power is persuading people to comply without having to invest any political capital or treasure in the application of force.

Screw the Way Things Are, I Want Out, by Paul Rosenberg

Paul Rosenberg is disgusted with life on this planet and wants to go off into space and live somewhere else. Who doesn’t? From Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:

This is a beautiful planet, filled, in the main, with decent, cooperative humans. And yet, I want out. Give me any kind of functional spaceship and any reasonable chance, and I’ll take it. This place is anti-human. It chokes the best that’s in us, aggressively and self-righteously.

I was struck not long ago by a comment of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s, in which he expressed the same kind of feeling:

I ought to have… become a star in the sky. Instead of which I have remained stuck on earth….

All of us who’ve had a moment of transcendence – who made some type of contact with what is truly the best inside ourselves – have also sensed that life in the current world is incompatible with it. I think we should stop burying that understanding beneath piles of “that’s the way things are,” “we should be realistic,” and “you can’t fight City Hall.”

Screw the way things are, screw “realistic,” and screw City Hall too. I was made for better things than this, and you were too.

Everywhere I turn, some kind of ruler, sub-ruler, enforcer, regulator, or “right-thinking” quasi-enforcer demands not only my money but also for me to make myself easy to punish, thus showing myself to be a good subservient. That’s not just wrong; it’s a disease. I don’t care whether such people are “following orders,” “just doing their job,” or whatever else they tell themselves to soothe their rightly troubled souls. That mode of living is perverse, and these people are enforcing a disease.

To continue reading: Screw the Way Things Are, I Want Out

Life, or Death? by Robert Gore

On July 16, 1945, a plutonium implosion atomic bomb was detonated in the desert north of Alamogordo, New Mexico. Within a month, a uranium-based and a plutonium-based atomic bomb were detonated above Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. Atomic fission, and later fusion, became the basis for the most deadly arsenal ever assembled, giving the US government the power to eradicate the human population, making it history’s most powerful institution. The Soviet Union’s development of its own nuclear arsenal in the 1950s challenged US power. Per Lord Acton’s famous dictum, absolute power produced absolute corruption on both sides of the Cold War.

Their leaders saw the world in terms of an amoral chess match. Other nations’ governments were pawns in their strategies for global domination and individual lives were of no consequence. Intelligence agencies rose to preeminence, employing sabotage, deception, propaganda, political manipulation, revolution, regime change, and assassination in foreign countries, supposedly excused by the imperatives of fighting the other side’s nefarious designs. Although there was a fair amount of playing one side against the other, brutally repressive autocrats willing to ostensibly align with either side received diplomatic, financial, intelligence, and military support from their benefactors.

Vietnam fully displayed the immoral depths the US government had plumbed. It engaged in regime change, assassination, deception of the American people, drug running, secret bombing of countries with which the US was not at war, false flag terrorism, torture, and war crimes—including rape and murder—against civilians. None of this was unique to Vietnam, either before or after. Estimates of the total dead range from 1.3 to 3.8 million. After spending trillions (in today’s dollars) and with 58,000 military deaths and 153,000 wounded, US forces left Vietnam having accomplished none of their objectives (its remaining partisans still refuse to use the word “defeat”). South Vietnam was eventually conquered by North Vietnam.

Vietnam has been the template for every major US military engagement since. The Soviet pawn-master resigned the match in 1991, but by that time perpetuation of US empire and maintenance of the military-industrial-intelligence complex was of far greater concern than the supposed Soviet threat. Islamic extremism was adroitly substituted for the Red Peril. The 9/11 attack served as the rallying cry against this new, supposedly mortal threat, justification for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and impetus for the wholesale expansion of government surveillance and concomitant diminution of individual liberties. The foray into the Middle East and its ever escalating blowback may already be a bigger disaster for the US than Vietnam, and if is not yet, it will be. It has certainly been a catastrophe for the Middle East and Europe, which will soon be overwhelmed by the refugee flood.

Aside from Vietnam protests, propelled in part by fear of the draft (the protests stopped when Nixon abolished it), most Americans have docilely accepted the post WWII expansion of the military-industrial-intelligence complex and its string of disasters. The mainstream media has been co-opted by the government. Coercively extracted, redistributed largess and myriad distractions keep the populace pacified. Taxation, regulation, debt, and the government’s destructive and corrupt involvement have strangled the once magnificent US economy, stifling honest innovation and production, skewing incentives towards government-favored economic activities, and rewarding cronies. Bankruptcy looms as government policy makers maintain that patently absurd nostrums—government debt, central bank monetization, negative interest rates—will revive the patient they’ve rendered comatose.

It is time to discard the fiction that those who have brought the US to this pass have had honorable motivations. There is an understandable reluctance to state that they want what they have wrought: deterioration, destruction, ruin, and death. Many people are motivated by a desire to improve their and their families’ situations; find meaningful work; make friends and support a community; engage in enjoyable activities, in short, to live constructive lives as they see fit. They are reluctant to ascribe purely malicious and malignant motivations to any other human being, and they excuse failure, even repeated failure by people they detest, as stemming from the wrong political orientation, or as the unintended consequences of good, but unrealistic intentions.

This plays into the hands of the depraved. To say to them: “I’m sure you have the best of intentions,” is to lose the argument before it begins. It acknowledges the beneficence and nobility in which they rhetorically cloak themselves, when their motives are anything but beneficent or noble. Those who would oppose them are left to wonder why their irrefutable arguments and prescient predictions of failure have the same effect as pebbles bounced against castle walls. However, even when it occurs to them that perhaps the disastrous results were exactly what was intended, social opprobrium and the power of the “benefactors” generally prevents them from voicing their suspicions. Obamacare is clearly designed to fail and pave the way for a single payer system, but only a handful of its critics, and none of its proponents, will come right out and say so.

To state the truth: “They have the worst of intentions,” casts the “they” as irretrievably evil, opposed to every value of human existence. It means that “they” want the decay, destruction, and death they promulgate, that “they” want to see you and everybody else who is not “they” dead. It is because she clearly and unequivocally stated this truth that Ayn Rand has been savagely denounced since Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. She took it one step further, however. One of the most important scenes in the novel was towards the end, when the heroes rescue John Galt from the destroyers.

He [James Taggart] was suddenly seeing the motive that had directed all the actions of his life. It was not his incommunicable soul or his love for others or his social duty or any of the fraudulent sounds by which he had maintained his self-esteem: it was the lust to destroy whatever was living, for the sake of whatever was not. It was the urge to defy reality by the destruction of every living value, for the sake of proving to himself that he could exist in defiance of reality and would never have to be bound by any solid, immutable facts. A moment ago, he had been able to feel that he hated Galt above all men, that the hatred was proof of Galt’s evil, which he need define no further, that he wanted Galt to be destroyed for the sake of his own survival. Now he knew that he had wanted Galt’s destruction at the price of his own destruction to follow, he knew that he had never wanted to survive, he knew that it was Galt’s greatness he had wanted to torture and destroy—he was seeing it as greatness by his own admission, greatness by the only standard that existed, whether anyone chose to admit it or not: the greatness of a man who was master of reality in a manner no other had equaled. In the moment when he, James Taggart, had found himself facing the ultimatum: to accept reality or die, it was death his emotions had chosen, death, rather than surrender to that realm of which Galt was so radiant a son. In the person of Galt—he knew—he had sought the destruction of all existence.

Here is what “they” want—”the destruction of all existence.” They want life or death control over you and not because they want you to live. They want to kill you because they want to kill themselves. That is the black hole that has sucked in what was once their souls, if they ever had souls.

The obliviousness that most Americans embrace is a death wish: ignore the reality of evil and it will go away. Reality doesn’t go away; it destroys the oblivious. Humanity is hanging by a slender threat and its only hope is recognizing the evil of those who would destroy it. The battle is joined when we choose to fight them. The choice is this: Life, or Death? The refusal to choose is a choice.

CHOOSE LIFE. CHOOSE THE GOLDEN PINNACLE.

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

He Said That? 12/29/15

From Elie Wiesel, Romanian-born Jewish writer, professor, political activist, and Nobel Laureate.

Ultimately, the only power to which man should aspire is that which he exercises over himself.