United Discontent

The Iron Triangle

It’s our job to expose the power structures that lie within government that need separating and checking.  Ideally government’s job is to seperate and keep power in check, but regardless the citizenry should be constantly on guard for any such structures.  Now, what is bewildering is what was once a barnacle becomes something permanent.  Such is the case for the Iron Triangle.  Wikipedia describes it as  “In United States politics, the iron triangle is a term used by political scientists to describe the policy-making relationship among the congressional committees, the bureaucracy (executive) (sometimes called “government agencies“), andinterest groups.”  Political scientists have a special word for it

The Iron Triangle

This Iron Triangle Is A Commonly Accepted Power Structure In Government

It wouldn’t take very much to show that our founding fathers would be against such interests.

Here is a great example from CATO (where the cato institute got it’s name from) an ANTI-FEDERALIST from November 22nd 1787, written to New York,  his 5th paper publish.

“And here I cannot help remarking, that inexplicitness seems to pervade this whole political fabric: certainty in political compacts, which Mr. Coke calls the mother and nurse of repose and quietness, the want of which induced men to engage in political society, has ever been held by a wise and free people as essential to their security; as, on the one hand it fixes barriers which the ambitious and tyrannically disposed magistrate dare not overleap, and on the other, becomes a wall of safety to the community — otherwise stipulations between the governors and governed are nugatory; and you might as well deposit the important powers of legislation and execution in one or a few and permit them to govern according to their disposition and will; but the world is too full of examples, which prove that to live by one man’s will became the cause of all men’s misery. Before the existence of express political compacts it was reasonably implied that the magistrate should govern with wisdom and Justice, but mere implication was too feeble to restrain the unbridled ambition of a bad man, or afford security against negligence, cruelty, or any other defect of mind. It is alledged that the opinions and manners of the people of America, are capable to resist and prevent an extension of prerogative or oppression; but you must recollect that opinion and manners are mutable, and may not always be a permanent obstruction against the encroachments of government; that the progress of a commercial society begets luxury, the parent of inequality, the foe to virtue, and the enemy to restraint; and that ambition and voluptuousness aided by flattery, will teach magistrates, where limits are not explicitly fixed to have separate and distinct interests from the people, besides it will not be denied that government assimilates the manners and opinions of the community to it. Therefore, a general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security. — You are then under a sacred obligation to provide for the safety of your posterity, and would you now basely desert their interests, when by a small share of prudence you may transmit to them a beautiful political patrimony, that will prevent the necessity of their travelling through seas of blood to obtain that, which your wisdom might have secured: — It is a duty you owe likewise to your own reputation, for you have a great name to lose; you are characterised as cautious, prudent and jealous in politics; whence is it therefore, that you are about to precipitate yourselves into a sea of uncertainty, and adopt a system so vague, and which has discarded so many of your valuable rights. —

Is it because you do not believe that an American can be a tyrant? If this be the case you rest on a weak basis; Americans are like other men in similar situations, when the manners and opinions of the community are changed by the causes I mentioned before, and your political compact inexplicit, your posterity will find that great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman empire.”

Also a great example of the use of a paper to mildly influence people.     The constitution is nice too

Section. 9.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Who has time to read this kind of nonsense except for crazy people like me? 

Anywhoo,  We see many instances of such a triangle.  The problem is how to stop it.  Some people think the solution is honest men,  but have you ever seen a show where there is a president who always talks to like 4-5 people in black suits?  Usually the cabinet, but sometimes some other form of council, like game of thrones where it is a eunic and a mastere.  The point is, there lies certain people in power that do not change, despite who may be in the seat of the throne.  These people cannot simply be routed out by election alone, what to do with such people?  Many of these people we can identify by name, they are probably one of the 14 thousand of the elite.  Or more likely a position we do not even know.

Any Ideas?  We need them more than ever!  FRESH ONES!

Advertisements

Meeting Notes

Kissinger believes that the Israelis are in a panic and will
attack Iran. Erdogan has made it clear to him that he plans to
break with Israel at some point and reorient toward the Islamic
world. He intends to be their leader. Paul Volcker regards the
Greek crisis as potentially a mortal blow for the EU. He would
like to see an IMF tranche. He also said that Nicholas Brady is
behind both this and the Volcker principles Obama adopted. When
I asked Brady how he expects to get the the U.S. to go along
with an IMF bailout, he shrugged and said they won’t, but that’s
the only choice. Volcker is now doubtful the Euro can survive.
Brady is convinced it will. Kissinger thinks Volcker and Brady
are missing the real crisis which is in Iran and potentially
Russia. Volcker also says that the Bank of England and the
French will go along with the Volcker rules on an international
basis–that is returning to a variety of Glass-Steagal. The
Japanese will do whatever is said, and in Germany only Deutsche
Bank really makes decisions. Sarkozy told him he would come in.
So there may be an international convention on restructuring
banks under way–Volcker is pretty careful in what he says and
doesn’t promote himself more than the average bear, so this may
be the case. Nick Brady thinks so too.”


November 2011 Email concerning Arab Spring

The true cause of the arab spring according to Stratfor

“Early 2011 was a dramatic period in modern Egyptian history. The
mainstream mediaa**s narrative on the Arab Spring portrayed popular
uprisings as the driving force that swept away the regime of Hosni Mubarak
and opened the door to democracy
. But a closer examination indicates that
the rules of the past still apply. Concentration of power, physical
isolation from the outside world, and dependence upon outside forces for
economic security remain the trifecta that drives Egyptian society and
governmental development.

To understand the Arab Spring one must first understand the factors that
led to it. This is a discussion that must begin, not with the aspirations
of those that protested in Tahrir square, but with the strategic
imperatives of the military, the true vanguard of the Egyptian state.

Nassera**s plan to elevate the military as the vanguard of society worked,
but in years after Nassera**s death the military itself shifted position.
Rather than partnering with the Soviets to create a regional sphere of
influence, the military evolved its vanguard position in Egyptian society
into a system of ossified control. The state still owned nearly everything
of worth, but it was managed by and for the benefit of the military brass.
Everything from banks to import/export to agriculture — already heavily
influenced by the military under the vanguard system — was consolidated
into a series of military oligarchies. Rather than working to elevate
Egypt economically, the military oligarchs mostly divvied up the local
spoils and lived large.

This was a stable system from the late-1970s until the mid-2000s.
Egypta**s shielded geography limited the ability of any international
economic interest to challenge the military staffsa** personal fiefdoms.
Egypta**s partnership with the Americans mitigated international pressure
of all sorts, and in many ways even Egypta**s ostracism from the Arab
world due to its treaty with Israel allowed Egypta**s generals to rule
Egypt however they saw fit.

As (now deposed) President Mubarak aged, however, an internal challenge
arose to the military oligarchy in the form of the former presidenta**s
son, Gamal Mubarak, who wanted to transform Egypt from a military
oligarchy into a more traditional Egyptian dynasty. Doing this required
the breaking of the militarya**s hold on the economy. Gamal and his allies
— often with the express assistance of international institutions like
the World Bank — worked to a**privatizea** Egyptian state assets to
themselves. This process was a direct threat to the militarya**s political
and economic position at the top of Egyptian society. The military also
viewed Gamal, who never completed his military service, as a political
neophyte, incapable of understanding and managing the countrya**s security
imperatives.

The result was the a**Arab Springa**. In the months leading up to the
January demonstrations, Egypta**s top generals were delivering very stern
ultimatums to the president to abandon any hope of passing the reins to
Gamal while looking at their options to unseat Mubarak via more
unconventional means. The military strategically positioned itself early
on in the demonstration as the honest broker and guardian of the
protesters, taking care to avoid a violent crackdown on the demonstrators
while Mubaraka**s internal security forces were vilified on the streets.
Such a light hand was not due to lack of capacity, but due to lack of
need. The demonstrations provided the generals with the means to dismantle
the Mubarak legacy, the biggest liability to their own livelihood, while
maintaining the paramount role of the military.

But perhaps the most central indication that the a**revolutiona** was
misconstrued comes from the participation levels. On the day that Mubarak
ultimately stepped down the protests reached their peak. By the most
aggressive estimate only 750,000 people — less than 1 percent of the
population of densely populated Egypt a** took to the streets. In true
revolutions such as that which overthrew Communism in Central Europe or
the shah in Iran, the proportion regularly breached 10 percent and on
occasions even touched 50 percent. In short, Egypta**s Arab Spring was a
palace coup, not a revolution.”


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! 2012

Wishing all of you involved with The Resistance, or for even those still ignorant reading this post scoffing who will soon be a member its not too late we accept you, a lovely and merry 2012

Right now the movements against the power elite are losing force, dying out into miniscule fractions, but a worldwide echo of resistance still permeates .

“An echo that turns itself into many voices, into a network of voices that, before Power’s deafness, opts to speak to itself, knowing itself to be one and many. Let it be a network of voices that resist the war that the Power wages on them. A network of voices that not only speak, but also struggle and resist for humanity and against neoliberalism .” – Subcommandante Marcos


3 Views of Evil with 2 starting points

Informed by Moshe Hallamish

Image

There are two starting points, one with man (how does mankind deal with evil) and God (what is the relationship between the divine realm and intrinsic goodness).  Let’s start off with the three views that will be continually referred to throughout the continuation of 2012, Mere Christianity has a great introduction to views as well

1.

“In the bible, God is portrayed as ‘former of light and creator of darkness, maker of peace and creator of evil’ (isa 45:7).  the world is thus seen as the handiwork of a benevolent God, and he, in his thought and plan, assigned a role and a place for evil.  Evil is nothing but a medium through which God attains his benevolent ends.  In that way, the problem of evil becomes a moot point, although the questionf of divine recompense does remain– why dothe wicked flourish and the righteous suffer?”

Image

2.

“The neoplatonic worldview, which exerted a tremendous influence on Christian mysticism, held that the world originated in supreme goodness.  The light descends from the source and through emanation forms the lower worlds, but in the process it gradually darkens and becomes more dense. In its final nullification, it becomes matter, which is evil in its essence;in other words, what was formerly light is no longer an entity, for it has no existence–rather, it is the absenece of light and goodness.  Our world is the world of matter, and a place devoid of light is naturally filled with darkness.  This, therefore, does not contradict the perception of the divine as a sublime and complete entity.  The neoplatonic view is fundamentally monistic, brimming with the optimism that in truth, our world is good and its source is Goodness”

3.

“Gnosticism , in contract, infleunced by persian religious views (zarathrusta/zoaraster, manichieasm) is dualistic.  It contends the existence of two autonomous realms.  Evil is a real and destructive force; our world is the kingdom of the lord of evil, the Demiurge.  In opposition is the lord of good, represented by the human soul.  Man’s role is to free the sol, a spark of goodness, from its enslavement to the lord of evil.  Gnosticism did offer a solution to the philosophical and theological problem, but it placed man in the throse of a continual and terrible struggle”

Image


Israael’s defense industry likes michelle bachman’s mouth

Everyone has a duty.  Politicians do their job of simultaneously representing an interpertation, a particular worldview, to information on screen, but also sound like legitimate experts on an issue.  Think Tanks abound hidden, sometimes asking the questions themselves to the politicians assisting them in creating a certain culture of debate.  As they fearmonger during our GOP debates concerning Iran and its nuclear capabilities,  they slowly subtley and surely push us in the direction of war.

There must be articially created a narrative to how we got there.  Politicians must seem unsure on issues, grow to them stronger as time goes on, and the audience too like a weekly episode of LOST must constantly anticipate what might be the next gesture.  At some point the audience begins believeing that this is actually the way political decisions happen.  That mitt romney was debating with ron paul, when he announced iran would certainly be a threat and cut off the oil and paul seemed to doubt him.  This shouldn’t have anything to do with the congresses later decision to sanction Iran, but before you know it fox news, cnn, and every left/right blog has its neoconservative or neoliberal view on justifying war with iran.

meanwhile THE COMMENTARY a playful supposedly bipartisan magazine, has an article called “how israel’s defense industry can help save america”

Arthur Herman the person writing this is from a think tank called the American Enterprise Institute

HOW ISRAEL’S DEFENSE INDUSTRY CAN HELP SAVE AMERICA

Kibbutz Sasa is also the home of the main factory of Plasan, a company that started out making hard plastic containers like garbage cans in 1985. For four years now, American soldiers have driven more safely in Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to Kibbutz Sasa and Plasan’s CEO, Dani Ziv.

It was Ziv who, in the 1980s, urged the company to take up the manufacture of protective ballistic vests for soldiers and police. In 1989, Plasan won its first contract to make body armor for the Israel Defense Forces, and then for IDF vehicles. When war came to Afghanistan and then Iraq, orders went through the roof, especially from the United States. Plasan’s profits soared some 1,500 percent, from $23 million in 2003 to $330 million in 2007. Today they stand at over $500 million, with 90 percent of the company’s orders coming from Europe and the United States.”

with Nato being 75 percent paid by american tax dollars  this is a significant relationship that has nothing to do with God.

It might, in some weird kaballah/neon evagelion council of 9 way, but for all non-interesting ideas aside, lets say it is just economic gain.  The defense companies have been convinced to go from Israel defense to private Israel defense, through a process called liberalization or making it private, so now it only benefits certain Israeli owners of these companies instead of the nation which the US citizen believes it is helping.

Raytheon which used to be the primary company by us is in partnership with Rafael defense systems.

This is the true relationship that undermines all of the bullshit on Television, the only problem is how to expose it.   THE COMMENTARY praises it, i’m astonished!   They’re already excited about the money to be made by more war.   Luckily we have ron paul for now.  Spitting the truth, I wonder if he’ll open up completely about the elite when he’s finished?  the argument that he’s old is a good one, that will take its toll.


Occupy s Needs

I spent a few hours with the Austin Occupy City Hall movement today.  Like much of the movement, most of the time of the meeting was spent with dealing with internal problems, such as sleeping arrangements, camping equipment such as tarps sheets and blankets, rules regarding excess clothes, powerwashers, first aid, food arrangements and other “incidents” that may have happened.

Very little time was spent penetrating the issues occupy stands for, as Pops the leader of the group said very poignantly “we’re homeless, we cant do much. our best hope is to possibly make an impact on an individual”  he implied that what the group needed was patronage and financial support of the middle and upper class.

There was a well-rounded documentary film maker, he’s working on a project and we’ll see how it turns out.  Otherwise, most of the occupiers more or less believe their best hope is getting people to read signs, become educated, and more informed “on the issues”.  basically a liberal progressive means of rebellion.  It reminded me of the scene from CHE when he’s camping in bolivia trying to start another revolution, this time a latin american one (in the hopes of emperor BOLIVAR)  the revolutionaries find out that the communist party of bolivia does not support an armed struggle and cannot afford to pay their stipends.  Most of the men quickly turn despairing “How will I take care of my family?”  Most of the urban farmers could only fight the revolution on the terms that the communist party would still continue to support them, and once they found out they would be getting no help the movement quickly died.

What we need is something like the original 80 guys who conquered Cuba (only 12 survived to see it to the end) which simultaneously already works with existing movements but also has members that are completely self-sacrificial without any deep worldly attachments.  If Occupy can create an international dialogue with those around the world who are also fighting their ruling classes, international bankers, and global power elite (india/syria/saudiarabia/yemen/libya/south africa/argentina/venezuela/spain/ [parts of the eurozone opposing neoliberal economic policies ]/ the french insurrection/london riots/anonymous/) it might go further than the battle of seattle, and other left leaning egatlitarian democratic movements againts globalization.  If it continues to isolate itself, and have general meetings purely on interntal regulatory problems (problems that only deal with perpeuating occupy, not actually DOING a beligerent political action) it will continue to disolve, and will be used to constrain the debate in the future

“…well you saw what happened with OWS, do you really want another movement like that?”