Tags
Abuse of Power, Brazilian Protests, Capitalism, Corporate State, David Miranda, Empire, Financial Elite, GCHQ, Glenn Greenwald, Gross Inequality, Inverted Totalitarianism, NSA, Peak Oil, Police State, Schedule 7 of the UK Terror Law, Security and Surveillance State, Social Unrest, The Elite 1%, Wall Street Fraud
I was reading about the creepy Corporate State incident with David Miranda, and what particularly gave me pause was the following excerpt:
“They even asked me about the protests in Brazil, why people were unhappy and who I knew in the government,” said Miranda.
This tells me that the power elite are all on edge right now. Brazil was supposed to be one of the BRIC countries that “benefited” from economic growth in recent times, yet the social unrest is not confined to the backwaters of America’s Empire in the oil-cursed Middle East. The cost of daily essentials is becoming too much for the average person in Brazil.
Numerous environmental and socio-economic tipping points are converging, inevitably leading to social disintegration on a global scale. And it doesn’t help that neoliberal capitalism is accumulating the global wealth into fewer and fewer hands. This situation is what I was referring to in my previous post when I called it a “deadly game of musical chairs.”
Collapse of Industrial Civilization 
Pingback: Democracy is Finished
I have been unwell and have just watched the BBC Great War series (which I first saw nearly 50 years ago!)
Faux democracy, censorship, propaganda, trampling human ‘rights’, the great industrial clobbering machine, cannon fodder, empire, deranged elites, starvation …… it’s all there (even the first invasion of ‘Iraq’).
People born into comfort and convenience may like to view this series to get a better understanding of how the modern world was shaped and how mollycoddled we are compared to our grandparents/great grandparents.
LikeLike
When people talk of the “Golden Age” in America, it was born after WW II when America was the world’s number one oil producer and its global dominance came into being. Energy and resource wealth have a tendency to push all the ugly truths you refer to under the carpet.
LikeLike
Two comments for this article.
1. About high prices in Brasil. While being very painful to the population, this may ironiaclly be a good thing in the long run, because this way the gap between “good days” and SHTF becomes smaller. Yes, social unrest in Brasil is nothing good. However, when proper S truly HTF, who do you think will have less social unrest – brasilians or americans? Yes, high prices and having not enough even for basic needs now – is nothing good. But, who do you think will be more able to survive once SHTF – brasilians, with years of experiences of “living with not enough to live”, or americans, who until-then were quite fed and secure?
Of course, i simplify and generalize. Both countries have all sorts of people – there are still well-fed, “everything’s good” above-middle class people in Brasil (even if relatively few), and there certainly are millions of “not enough money to eat well” folks in USA as well. However, i think that even in such a simplified form, the thought above is worth serious consideration.
And by the way, Brasil is special country. Perhaps it is one of the few countries which, despite all the global warming and all the pollution and all the deforestation will hopefully still have large, working, productive and relatively stable ecosystems. In compare to most other countries, that is. Because where there is water, there is life – and Brasil is by FAR the country with most abundant fresh water: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-fresh-water-supply-map.html . So you see, perhaps in the long run there will be less loss of human life because of currently happening deterioration within economic system.
2. About democracy. Indeed, it’s over. However, i applaud it. I say it’s good it’s over. The idea itself never made me happy. The problem with democracy – is incompetence of people. Don’t get me wrong, this is not an offense; people are not “guilty” in any way about being incompetent rulers – and democracy is “people rule”. Indeed, how can they be competent rulers, if they are spending much/most/all of their life being competent specialists in other professions?
Specialization is one of cornerstones of advanced civilization, there is no alternative to it. The idea of having all people being “2 in 1” specialists, – 1st profession is whatever they are (doctor, soldier, scientist, whatever), 2nd profession being competent “ruler” – i.e. being able to make proper decisions about governing one’s country, – is theoretically possible, however, it’d cut efficiency of technological civilization roughly in half. So it can’t happen in practice, as long as there is competition between large societies for supremacy (and until very recently there was, andeven now there is still much such competition – both between nations/countries and between corporations as well).
I amazes me how people seem to believe that proper ruling and governing is possible by “people”, by “masses”, because to make proper decisions on regional, national and global level – is definitely a task for a professional, full-time specialist in such matters, since governing large societies well – is a very compelx task. More complex than tasks of majority of other professions. So you see, when people say “we want democracy! we all want to have political power!” – to me is very same as if those very people would say, for example, “we all want to participate in a design of nuclear power station, to have an influence about how it’s built, where it’s built, how it operates” – and saying that without any knowledge and skills in designing and operating nuclear power stations. Both of those desires, you see, have similar destructive potential – however, only the latter is seen as ridiculous and stupid, but the former is somehow seen as just and right.
Some may say that people “have the right” to participate in making regional, national, global politic decisions. And i would agree with that. Some may say people voices are to be heard – and i would agree with that. But, participating and/or being heard is one thing, _deciding_ – being the sole decision maker, – is completely another. And in functioning properly democracy, – even as the word itself means, – the sole ruler is “the people”. That’s where it fails.
How it fails, exactly? Why, very simple. Majority of voters in most democracies are not any skilled politicians, nor they are very bright – especially smart, educated, – individuals. Average intellect is called average because majority have it, if you see what i mean. So, majority can be manipulated. Tricked. Brainwashed. Technically, it’s rather simple to do as long as mass media exist (one of the reasons why democracies all around the world deteriorated very fast once most potent mass media of 20th century, – television, – became widely spread). And, of course, there is extremely powerful incentive to do this – for many of “evil” (i.e., selfish, unfair and merciless folks – and there always some of this kind around). This incentive is political power of elected representative. This power arises from delegation of duties, which “people” make to the elected representatives. So you see, there is a method to corrupt democracy, there is a motive to do it, and there are some bad guys, always, who have this motive. No wonder democracies fail. In fact, they _can’t_ not to fail, – again, as long as mass media is around.
Why mass media is so important: it allows for massive “multiplication” of information. Without mass media, some scum may try to cease some power, – but they are limited to talking/tricking small groups of people at a time (well, as large as they can gather in a single place, tops; might be some thousands). Mass media allows bad guys to say something once, and then their saying would be multiplied in millions copies, – it’ll be “replayed” on millions of TV screens, and/or typed in up to millions units of some newspaper(s), and/or shown on millions computer displays. Millions of people can read/hear the message which took, say, just ONE MINUTE to make. Without such an amplification, bad guys can’t cease much of the power – for a simple reasons that in most societies, they are quite few. Normally people are not THAT evil, i mean; many can be jerks, many can be silly, but truly evil people are very few among us. Plus, to cease power, it also takes good intellect; if one is evil like Satan himself, but dumb as a rock, – well, he won’t be able to corrupt democracy. So we talk about very few bad guys here. And, without mass media, they just can’t have enough impact to override much good which is done by many other folks who try to help each other. With mass media, though, by lies and deceit and manipulation, bad guys can trick SO MUCH MORE good guys to follow bad guys’ cause, to make them believe and follow – this is how they get their power to corrupt democracies.
So it ends up, in modern times, like this: masses (“we the people”), being unable to skillfully govern regions/countries/world themselves, delegate actual governing power to (relatively) few “expected to be” professional governers – known as “politicians”; however, being tricked and manipulated, what masses _actually_ do – is delegating power to professional manipulators, liers, merciless exploiters, who usually have no clue how to govern, lead and solve large-scale problems properly. They are often good at acting (making an impression) that they can do it, though – whole “science” of PR is much about this, and it ain’t no secret.
As a result, proper governance and leadership is, increasingly, an exception nowadays – majority of modern politicians can’t govern well – what they can do well is using all means possible to seize political power.
Practical need to govern and solve society’s most pressing problems still exists, though. It is being addressed by a combination of doing few things:
– hiring few indeed professional governers and decision makers who address issues which just must be solved;
– lying to people about problems being solved, whenever it’s possible to do so. For example, what country doesn’t lie to its own population about strength and might and ability of the army? If there is an army in a country, there are always many lies, exhagerrating the might of it – while in reality, problems in army might be so many and so big that practical fighting ability of an army is reduced to nearly zero. However, general population is separated from army physically, most people don’t see how bad things are – and here we go, politicians and generals in mass media lie, or even honestly believe and propagate their opinion that “everything’s cool”. Another example is ecology… Same deal, only even worse. Climate change “debate” – same deal; etc etc;
– “sacrificing” part of the population to solve emerging problems. Sometimes, even literally, without “”s. Housing bubble bursts? Bad guys say: ok, let’s just make few millions homeless, this will do. Economy fails? Bad guys say: ok, let’s just expropriate whatever we need from some part of the population. This exactly what was done in USA at some point of 1930s Great Depression IIRC: all citizens who had more than certain (small) amount of gold – were made to just GIVE AWAY most of this excessive gold (considering the price!) at some point; failure to do so was, by law, a criminal offense – and, naturally, not too many people around were fancy to serve some time in jail. Famine and hunger? Bad guys say: ok, let’s just send army to take away supplies of those who made large piles of food supplies, or simply have strong, productive farms; we’ll feed whomever we deem nesessary with those supplies, and whomever among robbed ones would be revolting – we’ll just send away or simply kill. Exactly that was done in “young” USSR, by the way, – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization – and by the way, exactly same thing will most likely be done by many states in not-so-distant future, as well. One of major reasons why many of detailed advices presented in the book “Beyond Collapse: Surviving and Rebuilding Civilization from Scratch” – are wrong. I mean initial (after collapse) months phase at very least;
– doing nothing about many problem(s) of people whatsoever, letting people to suffer consequences. Air quality in industrial regions of China nowadays? Check, many many thousands just die to Asthma etc every year there, bad guys say: “whatever”. Social unrest or civil war as a result of some domestic strugle for power between “factions” of bad guys? Bad guys say: sure, go for it, we are BUSY here fighting for power, shoo! Was the case in so many countries, including early days of USA, few centuries ago in Europe, few years after the revolution of 1917 in Russia, you name it.
All that said is why i am glad democracies die. We, the people, need competent, skilled, and above all, willing to work very hard professionals who would govern and lead societies – calling it “professional-cracy” is long and too ugly, but i have no better word. Democractic election – direct election, at least, – cannot make this happen, as we increasingly see. Ergo, we need some other, not democratic, process – which in the same time would still include participation (but, not ultimate right to decide!) of people in the governing process.
What such process might be?
Logically thinking, when some corporation needs some excellent professionals – such people are specifically educated 1st, and then employed 2nd. It’s as easy as that, really. Designate some young bright minds who are willing to become effective politicians to proper education programs, then employ best of graduates. Judge by results. Select the best of the best for higher and ultimate-top positions, like presidents. You see, this has nothing to do with “public opinion”, and everything to do with demonstrable abilities, skills and results. The complex tasks of governing a region, a country, and (in some regards already nowadays) global society, – can only be performed adequately this way, i believe.
Who, then, would employ such specialists? Who will control their results? Who will chose best and best of the best? Why, other specialists, of course. Not the public. Making contracts (employing), proper control, objective selection of the best specialists – all this is done by specialists in modern corporations, not by “all actioneers meetings”.
What the public will have to do, though, is a bit more than actioneers do within corporations. This is because for actioneers, the only desirable end result, – is money. And money are easy to count. More money = good; less = bad. What “we the people” of the world desire – is not just money. We, ultimately, desire the Earth to remain habitable (and if possible, prosperous). We desire food, water, shelter, security and sustainability. This is a bit more complex than just money, eh. Therefore, we the people need to keep an eye on what professionals will do, so that if some professionals are (or, become) incompetent and/or lazy and/or manipulative – we the people would have at least have a hope to detect it and press for replacements. To make this possible, proper professional politicians need to make detailed reports about their decisions, actions, plans, choices and put them to public access for indefinite time, for all to see. Much like some corporations do it today about money – financial annual reports and statistics, like this one: http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/c4/28/d86e73434193975a768f3500ffae/2012-annual-report-on-form-10-k.pdf . Except, again, for working social order of the future, such reports by governing professionals will have to address not just money (financial facts and statistics), but also matherial resources and processes – and not about ones which are direct needs by humans, such as food, water, energy sources, – but also well-being of Gaia itself, at least to the full extent of its mankind’s life-support capacities and features.
One might ask me how i expect this to happen, though, if global industrial civilization is expected to collapse. Answer is: 1st, i don’t “expect” it, – i merely hope for it; 2nd, i don’t even hope that present global civilization could transform itself into this “professional-cracy”. All signs are that it can’t do it. My hope is, therefore, that such a “professional-cracy” on a global scale will eventually appear in remote future: after GIC of the present collapses, and after little remains of mankind struggle through centuries of desperate existance on a unprecedentally hot (for human species) Earth.
I even hope that it is inevitable to happen, except if human species will completely extinct during this or next century (as a result of thermal maximum and its many catastrophic consequences, such as complete desertification of vast majority of tropical and temperate belts of Earth). It may even be that complete extinction of humans just mentioned – is the most likely future; i, for one, do not have enough data to make any good estimation for chances. But i have an argument, though, that if it’ll indeed be complete extinction of humans, – then nothing really matters anyways. Therefore, as long as even small hope exists that humans will make it, in some remote future, to once again form a global civilization (connected, and in many or even all regards governed by a single governing body), – i consider it important to work on what such a system might actually be. Because, the earlier we humans start to implement principles and methods of such a system, – the more chances there are that Gaia’s systems which are in fact life support systems for us humans, – will not be completely destroyed by humans very completely. Which means, trying to design social relations’ system which would be effective at keeping Earth’s human life support systems in at least steady, but more likely self-reinforcing, state – is nothing else than work to increase chances of human species survival.
Vast majority of internet doesn’t care; vast majority of those who care – don’t see why what i said above is indeed important; vast majority of those who see why it’s critically important, – do not see any way to actually design AND implement such a system of social relations. Myself, i am in the latter group: i can fathom how to work on design of such a system, and there is a hope i could create something much more practical than very simplified, partial, and probably still substantially wrong description of such a system (which i just gave above, here), – but i have no clue whatsoever how and when such a system could be implemented. Especially considering dwindling resources, – human and matherial resources, – which will be primary characteristic of most institutions and places on Earth during next decades at very least.
Realization that extremely very few people on Earth who could actually have any chance to design and implement new social relation system, which i just gave above, is one of things which pushes me to work on this further. Chances of success might be very small – but i know that if people like me stop working on this, then it won’t be done for _sure_. Not really acceptable perspective to me.
P.S. It’s very unfortunate that corporations don’t plan / manage risks for centuries ahead. They can’t do it, because remote future is too uncertain – and because they work for short-term profit, too. And their jobs are not “for life”. Monarchy had it good, in a sense; once king, a person knew it’s very likely he’s stuck with the “job” for the rest of his life. Adds responsibility, eh. Anyhows, corporations don’t invest much in too remote future, and that’s why they won’t help making new system of social relations. Otherwise they wouldn’t be as shortsighted as to influence education system with all the “make ’em model citizen, obedient worker and intense consumer” content. But perhaps, times will change. May be some corporations will help with this. May be few already do some work on the subject, without making it public? Or may be, once GIC is down, some parts of such a system, designed by individuals and enthusiasts (may be i’ll become one) – will then be learned, for example in a form of books, and then implemented on local / regional level by relatively little, but still at least a bit civilized societies of survivors. Or, may be, such attempts will all fail, and capitalism / market economy with a veil of pretended democracy – was indeed the best there can be. After all, we humans are not flawless beings; we have many hard-coded fears and emotions, and it might well be there is no better social relations’ system. I do not know which one of the 4 possibilities here mentioned will be realized, but i know it’s better to die trying than to die while giving up, even if efforts would mean no difference in the end.
LikeLike
Democracy died for me when JFK was killed while I was in 9th grade. It took a bit longer for me to catch up to the history that revealed that our use of the term democracy was bastardized and that we weren’t really any such thing. It’s all contrived, smoke and mirrors, dumbed down education (what ever happened to civics? look who’s editing the school books we use, etc), non-nutritious food, fluoridated water, constant tv and now cell phone towers keep the masses confused, unable to concentrate and mentally “off” and distracted.
From the very beginning – the whole story of not only America, but civilization itself is complete bullshit – self congratulating hubris despite the evidence to the contrary. Our “founding fathers” were cretins who owned slaves, had immense wealth, power and influence and the version of a republic they instituted didn’t last very long and changed with each subsequent administration until the whole Fed banking system was set up, then we became a feudal system dressed in modern clothes. Demo-crazy
is more like it.
Even the so-called science was a sham. Sure we discovered all these neat tricks we could do with coal,steam and engines, but never once gave a thought to the pollution or the environment we continually used as a dump. Once we did discover that our cleverness wasn’t good for mother Earth or ourselves, what did we do? Kept at it for centuries, that’s what. We’re complete idiots as a species and deserve everything we’re doing to ourselves. It will be a blessing when we disappear from the planet due to our own stupidity, greed, pigheadedness, psychopathy, overconsumption, and rampant pollution to name a few of our traits.
LikeLike
My brief requiem for the human species:
Epitaph for an Evolutionary Deadend: More Oil and Coal than Brains
LikeLike
Tom, much of what you said here is incorrect (wrong, untrue), in my personal opinion. I do not say i know better – i merely say i am one guy who thinks you are wrong in some of your statements, based on undeniable facts i happen to know – for example, many warnings, from speeches to serious research papers, which scientists and some high-ranking military officers made public during 20th century. Many of such speeches and papers are available both in paper and online, and there is no doubt about dates.
You are, of course, completely free to decide how much attention you’d want to give to my opinion – and if any at all, too. The following is the list of your statements, made just above, which in my opinion are incorrect (opposite to reality), with comments of mine next to them (after // sign).
1. “non-nutritious food”
// people die if their food is completely non-nutritious in a few months – it’s a fact.
2. “From the very beginning – the whole story of not only America, but civilization itself is complete bullshit – self congratulating hubris despite the evidence to the contrary.”
// _whole_ of it is _complete_ bullshit? Wrong. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance – apparently, for the 1st time in Earth’s 4+ billions history, she developed something – our technological civilization – which could possibly protect her from getting devastated by the next big one(s), or even ripped in half one day. Human civilization can do better than dinosaurs or any other presently known species, in this regard. Another example: things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault – a new way of preventing green plant species extinctions and possibly enriching biodiversity of future Gaia, by saving what she might be losing (with or without human help). And personally, i consider good music and beautiful pieces of other arts not all being complete bullshit, too. Subjective, i know, but seriously, can you call this “bullshit”?
3. “Our “founding fathers” were cretins who owned slaves, had immense wealth, power and influence”
// the 1st thing which happens to a cretin with immense wealth and power – is losing both. Unless every person around is also a cretin, which i am sure was not the case (some people are just born smart, can’t help it; a few of those are always around – including some of ’em slaves “founding fathers” had).
4. “then we became a feudal system”
// worse. I tend to believe Noam Chomsky (one of most cited scientists now alive, and in top-10 of most cited scientists of all times, – together with people like Einstein, Darwin, etc) when he says that USA is inverted totalitaritarism nowadays. You can find him saying that in at least one of youtube videos of him, sorry i didn’t save a link to it. Anyhows, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism .
5. “we … never once gave a thought to the pollution or the environment we continually used as a dump.”
// Why, we did. Countless times. What we (if you man mankind, so far) failed at – is actually doing sufficiently many sufficiently great things about it. But the worst was and still is definitely prevented. National parks don’t create themselves. Some people made them. Others guard them. Thousands of waste-processing plants exist – some people designed them, others built them, others yet maintain them. Countless acts of irresponsible or plain destructive exploitation of nature, which some bad guys tried to do, were prevented by some good guys, who made much more than thinking – up to risking their lives to stop polluting companies, individuals, projects, dumps, etc. And some of scientists were very sound with warnings about CO2, if that’s what you mean in particular, for decades already. You can find names of just some few of such scientists in this timeline: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm .
6. “we did discover that our cleverness wasn’t good for … ourselves”
// Oh, for ourselves, it’s mightily good. You see, our cleverness can’t be without very complex and special genetic information which formes human brain – and this information is in our genes because natural selection favored gradual creation of genes which form our brain. Natural selection is the process of survival of the fittest. So you see, our cleverness is good for us, at least what mother Nature clearly demonstrates. Many other species are very clever too (though a bit less than humans). Elephants can paint. Dolphins, wolves and many other species hunt in packs. Many ants’ species grow plantations of fungi (proper agriculture, not less!). Crows, apes, whales are all incredibly clever creatures once you’d put some effort to learn what they can (and routinely) do. Oh, and if you’re not fancy to agree with natural evolution thingie, – well, ain’t no help none: see, Genesis 1:27 says “So God created man in his own image”, and then Genesis 1:31 says “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”. So if you’re a christian (i am kind of an agnostic here myself), then it’s sorta “official” that you must consider human cleverness being good: 1st, it’s a part of God’s image, but most importantly, God himself says that every thing he made – is good: this means, humans’ cleverness, being a part of things he created, is good because God directly said so – period.
7. “We’re complete idiots as a species”
// If we are, then all species also are – but then this statement loses any sense. “Idiot” has any sense only as relative to some other being – which is smarter than idiot. Imagine every last human being idiot in medical sense (as a diagnosis); would everyone call each other “idiot” then? Nope. It’d be perfectly normal. Humans are now in population overshoot, and it is not uniquely human feature – it’s life’s feature, becoming evident by any species’ population dynamics, once fitting for overshoot conditions are met. Often happens in nature, to all sorts of organisms. Following collapse and carrying capacity correction is also usual thing. At worst, we are simply as silly (or, as smart) as other species – not any especially idiotic at all. Yet, there are still hopes we may end up being smarter than typical. Depends if humans species would make past 22th century. Thing is, vast majority of other species, most likely some 90% or more, will not make it past 22th century (at least not without human help/preservation) – so if we humans would, then what better proof you’d need about our smarts as a species (whole). Oh, and weren’t you saying just above, in #6, about “our cleverness”, too?
8. “It will be a blessing when we disappear from the planet due to our own stupidity, greed, pigheadedness, psychopathy, overconsumption, and rampant pollution to name a few of our traits.”
// these traits are common, perhaps some of them dominating, but none of them are traits of 100% of human population now alive (nor in the past). Not every human being is stupid, not every is greedy, etc. I consider myself having little to none of all those traits you mention (well, may be i am a bit psychopathic, though; ain’t no doctor, can’t self-diagnose that – and i heard, some little bit of it is actually a good thing). Anyhows, this statement of yours is wrong, because: “we disappear” means every last human being disappearing (extinction of human species), and “every” means even those humans who do not have the traits you mention, nor any other inappropriate traits. True, those are extremely few, something like “saint” person. But, nonetheless, disappearance of “saint” people – or in more technical terms, those few people and small societies who end up being able to properly care about Gaia or at least local part of Gaia – would not be a blessing. By the way, such societies / cultures existed in the past, and at least few exist even today (i know about one such small culture on one of Africa’s high platous). Furthermore, not just “saints” disappearance would be a tragedy; many more people exist who are with some “flaws”, so to say, – but still, net total of their actions and words throughout their life – is net benefit to the Gaia. Oh, and please don’t think i consider myself such a “saint”: while i have little to none of traits you meantion, – i sure have some other “too bad” things, such as being very quick to go to rage in some certain situations in life. I know it’s unproductive, silly, wrong, not helping, – but i can’t get rid of it, not even of most of it; guess it’s how it’s wired up in my brain. Some other quirks, too – and i don’t doo enough good to hope to be among those who are “net effect – helping the planet”. I know how much i harm it simply by living in a city, – even despite all the measures i do to reduce that harm (i’m some ~20% of carbon footprint in compare to average Joe next door in my city, for example). But there are some, may be few, but still better than i people and cultures. Disappearance of those would be a tragedy for Earth – if nothing else, at least because of what i said in comment to #2 in this post.
P.S. Oh, and please, don’t blame “us” – humans. Please, try to see much, if not all, of ugly things as consequences of evolution, laws of physics, inevitable and logical development of perks and features of humans species, blindly selected and fixed in our genes by natural evolution. Mankind is as much a criminal to its own collapse as it is a victim – namely, neither. “Shit happens” in nature all the time, whole galaxies explode. Gotta learn to live through. Come on!
LikeLike
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/youve-had-your-fun-now-we-want-stuff.html
Zero Hedge,
20 August, 2013
While the much publicized Sunday morning detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda at Heathrow on his way back to Brazil, in a stunning move that as we subsequently learned had been telegraphed apriori to the US, could potentially be explained away as a desperate attempt at personal intimidation by a scared, and truly evil empire in its last death throes, it is what happened a month earlier at the basement of the Guardian newspaper that leaves one truly speechless at how far the “democratic” fascist regimes have fallen and fondly reminiscing of the times when dictatorial, tyrannical regimes did not pretend to be anything but.
For the fully story, we go to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger who, in a long editorial focusing on the tribulations of Greenwald, his partner, modern journalism and free speech and press in a time of near-ubiquitous tyranny when the status quo is questioned, happened to let his readers know that a month ago, after the newspaper had published several stories based on Snowden’s material, a British official advised him: “You’ve had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.”
It gets better: after further talks with the British government, Rusbirdger says that two “security experts” from Government Communications Headquarters, the British NSA equivalent, visited the Guardian’s London offices and in the building’s basement, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized. One of the officials jokes: “We can call off the black helicopters.”
Reuters adds that according to a source familiar with the event said Guardian employees destroyed the computers as government security experts looked on.
What is shocking is that as Rusbridger explained to the gentlemen from Whitehall, they had no jurisdiction over the forced destruction of Guardian property as it has offices in New York, that Greenwald himself was in Brazil, and that future reporting on the NSA did not even have to take place in London. That did not stop the UK government’s punitive measures, and obviously neither did pleas, before the computers were destroyed, that the Guardian could not do its journalistic duty if it gave in to the government’s requests.
In response, he wrote, a government official told him that the newspaper had already achieved the aim of sparking a debate on government surveillance. “You’ve had your debate. There’s no need to write any more,” the unnamed official was quoted as saying.
What is most shocking is that the UK government was apparently dumb enough to think that by forcing the Guardian to destroy its own hardware it would actually destroy some of the underlying data. It is this unprecedented idiocy that is most disturbing, because when interacting in a game theoretical fashion with an opponent one assumes rationality. In this case, what one got instead, was brute force and sheer, jawdropping stupidity.
Yet that is precisely what happened, and is why the stakes have suddenly been drastically higher: because the opponent now suddenly finds himself hurt, bleeding, ready to lash out at anything and everything without regard for the retaliation, and just happens to be dumb as a bag of hammers.
(there’s more)
LikeLike
Makes you wonder how these people in power will handle the multitude of terracidal tipping points.
LikeLike
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/08/05/have-we-crossed-the-9-planetary-boundaries/
The boundaries delimit: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, disruption of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, global freshwater use, land use changes, biodiversity loss, aerosol loading in the atmosphere, and chemical pollution.
LikeLike
and this:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/huge-multinationals-are-plotting-steamroll-our-democracy-their-hunt-profits
The giant multinationals are pushing a trade deal that will literally let them bypass our laws. This deal is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and it is coming at us in the next few months. The corporations are trying to switch this gravy-train onto the “Fast Track.” For them this deal is the light at the end of the tunnel of democracy and self-government that has been trying to reign them in. We need to get this runaway train back on the rails or We the People will be begging for scraps thrown from the caboose. Call your Senators and Representative today and let them know that people are paying attention and oppose “Fast Track trade authority.”
LikeLike
So much effort put into global corporate dominance and so little effort put into the continued habitability of planet Earth. Surely the corporations must have some geoengineering trick up their sleeve to enable their profit schemes to continue, right? NOT.
LikeLike
A couple important links:
Decentralized Renewables Won’t Fuel Modern Cities
Tilting at Windmills, Spain’s disastrous attempt to replace fossil fuels with Solar Photovoltaics – Book review of “Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution. The Energy Return on Investment”, by Pedro Prieto and Charles A.S. Hall. 2013
LikeLike
I find this so amusing, from RealClimate…
On the one thread, there’s a guy waking up to the reality, at least as I see it, that I was just pointing out on Paula’s blog yesterday. Nobody gives a shit about the IPCC, it might just as well never have existed, for all the difference it has made, and will make, nobody is going to take any notice of the science. The scientists might have made an impression if they had understood anything about PR and the forces they were up against, but they didn’t and they missed their chance, they were all busy doing their careers working for The Man.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/08/unforced-variations-august-2013/comment-page-7/#comment-404474
And on another thread
I am extremely frustrated by the constant “we’re doomed” approach…
What do we call these people ?
Maybe we end up with a few human populations dotted around the globe post apocalypse – and then we start all over again. Why is that not an acceptable plan for the next few 1000 years.
Bottleneck optimists ? I mean he doesn’t seem to mind that everything gets wiped away and the mass death, we just cheerfully carry on. Of course, as I see it, it’s crap, because the planet becomes uninhabitable for the kind of animals we are, so we don’t get to start again.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/08/the-inevitability-of-sea-level-rise/comment-page-2/#comment-404482
LikeLike
I am one “has hopes that may be humans would make it through the bottleneck” person here, as you probably know, ulv.
Say, what exactly make you so sure that, quote, “planet becomes uninhabitable for the kind of animals we are”?
Here’s what i know on the subject. For a place to be habitable by humans, it has to have:
– breathable air (minimum some ~12% oxygen, maximum ~2% CO2, the rest being nitrogen and trace gases, and no lethal levels of air pollution);
– drinkable water (no lethal levels of pollution, low to none salt);
– food (humans are omnivores, so either vegetables/fruits, or animals, or both, either domesticated or wild);
– tolerable temperature (means large part of the year being higher than 0 celcius and lower than 35 celcius wetbulb – the rest of the time humans can maintain tolerable temperature within a shelter);
– shelter (if nothing else, to protect humans from rains/snowfalls; can be built out of clay, stone, wood, or modern building matherials);
– minimum levels of social interactions, which by extention means at least some community.
This is actually it. Nothing else is needed. Not even civilization (though it helps very much to overcome difficulties, disasters and non-lethal deterioration of environment).
Now, look, here’s a place which i bet will have minimum levels of all those things for many centuries (at very least), most likely many millenia into the future (except in case of massive planetary catastrophe – multi-kilometer asteroid hit which mankind would fail to deflect/lead_away, or all-out global nuclear war and following multi-year nuclear winter, or Sun going novae – but all those are not inevitable to happen):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
Now let’s see.
Air.
– Oxygen – If nothing else, will be maintained well above 12% by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria – in case other photosynthetic lifeforms all perish, these extremely resilient little fellows will happily occupy vacant space, multiply and “increase production” massively.
– CO2. Currently at 0.4%, may rise up to 1,1% at the peak of activity of positive feedbacks of global warming, but inevitably will go down afterwards; same tiny cyanobacteria (in case all higher photosynthetic forms would die out) will ensure it, because CO2 is part of their “food” (the other parts being water and sunlight – both are and will be available to those little folks in excessive amounts, so cyanobacteria will consume, after a long while, all the CO2 they can get until CO2 gets back to physiologically-limiting concentration of some ~0,3%).
– Nitrogen. No sign of deficit of this thing. Inert and overabundant, too.
– air pollution: Tibet is averagely 4900 meters above sea level, and very far from any ocean. Any pollution which is heavier than air will largely remain “down there”. Any pollution which is lighter than air will not stay in Tibet, – it’ll pass it on its way up and up. I can’t see lethal levels of air pollution happening in large areas of Tibet, no unless planetary-scale catastrophe would happen to instantly throw up trillions of tons of matherial – then, of course, even Tibet is doomed. However, such catastrophies, again, are so far seem to be not inevitable; quite possibly none will happen for many millenia ahead. Even now, despite having VERY dirty China’s air not too far from it – all the coal stations etc, – Tibet still has awesomely clear air: http://www.asianscientist.com/topnews/tibet-sacred-nam-co-lake-2012/ . Nice, eh? 🙂
Air, bottom line: Tibet is likely to remain habitable.
Water.
– Amount. Thankfully, there is no indication water cycle would stop. With warming, it will even intensify significantly. It is possible that changes in air currents would reduce amount of precipitations (already rather low) in Tibet – however, noone can know for sure. It’s also possible amount of precipitations would actually increase – Tibet is high mountains, and high mountains tend to push air currents higher, and thus clouds, pushed by air currents, also go higher; and when they do, precipitations form and fall down, because the higher it gets, the colder it is – easier for vapor to condensate and fall down as precipitations.
– Purity. Being high mountains, Tibet doesn’t have polluted rivers from afar flowing in. Even better, mountains are well known to purify water very well. Various minerals and underground “passages” are amazingly great natural water filters, purifying the water extremely well. Those minerals and terrains are to stay there, no matter warming or GIC collapse. On top of that, mostly all “heavy” pollution, like heavy radioactive isotopes, fail to get that high into mountains (gravity is awesome thing, good job mr. Newton! 😀 ). So i really can’t see how water in much of Tibet could get lethally poisonous/polluted. As of now, there are some significant problems with it, though – but it’s caused not by out-of-Tibet factors, but within-Tibet mining (mostly for metals). Still, even with all the mining, it remains fairly good, if to trust http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/66410.htm . Once GIC shuts down, it’ll only get cleaner.
Water, bottom line: Tibet is quite possible to remain habitable.
Food.
Hard to grow there, and amounts are very humble. However, if only amounts of precipitations won’t be reduced massively (down to below ~30% of present levels, which is quite possible, if not likely), and given rather clean air, it’ll be possible to do what people in Tibet did for centuries: to have enough food. At least, that is so if monks of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganden_Monastery were not importing all (or, much) of their food from outside of Tibet. Which i think they didn’t in 1409, when this monastery was founded. How many people Tibet can feed? Luckily, we know the answer from history. In 1911, there were ~30.000 people living in Tibet, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region#Demographics . At the time, local agriculture was not mechanized, traditional, no modern chemicals, and no modern knowledge of how to grow things efficiently. 30.000 souls is enough to maintain quite potent regional civilization. It’s likely more food could be produced after GIC collapse there, too, assuming not all modern knowledge and understanding about agriculture will be lost (hard to imagine all such knowledge would be lost, you know).
Food, bottom line: quite possible to remain habitable, mainly dependant on water amount available.
Temperature.
http://www.chinatibettrain.com/tibetclimate.htm has max summer temperatures being ~23C. Lots of room to 35C wetbulb. Even if for some exceptional heatwaves 35C would be reached and exceeded, it only will happen during summer, and everynight temperatures most likely would drop below 35C. During days, humans can remain inside shelters (if insulated and massive well enough), or even underground (where it is much cooler than 35C even during heatwaves). Tibet will never go “blistering hot” for two reasons: its elevation, which reduces temperatures by some 20C in compare to sea level at same latitude; and the fact that global warming cannot exceed some ~15C, because Earth doesn’t get enough energy from the Sun per square meter for even 100% greenhouse effect to cause Venus scenario – energy radiated by hot body is proportional to 4th power of temperature in Kelvins (known law in physics), do the math and you’ll see what i mean.
Temperature, bottom line: Tibet is guaranteed to remain habitable.
Shelter.
Well, there is a lot of rock out there to build with, if needed. Plus caves “just in case” should be abundant in mountain terrain. Not all modern knowledge about building good housing will be lost, too.
Shelter, bottom line: Tibet is guaranteed to remain rich in building matherials and natural shelters.
Society.
As mentioned above, ~30.000 people were living in Tibet by 1911. Without imports (except very few items, mainly light-weight things like spices). Without electricity. Without automobiles. But with rich own culture, unique religion, peaceful customs and sustainable (very much in compare to GIC) civilization.
Society, bottom line: Tibet has done it before, and not too long ago with that. It certainly can return to old ways in whichever regards required.
Total, bottom line: Tibet, quite possibly, will remain habitable for many millenia ahead, at which time climate will return much to Holocene levels, given absense of GIC.
Additional benefit of Tibet is that it’s a) remote and b) hard to get to for any refugees “from below”, except few most rich ones who can afford air travel during/after collapse (which probably will be merely couple hundreds individuals).
So tell me, after all this, you still think that, quote, “planet becomes uninhabitable for the kind of animals we are”? If you do, WHY?
LikeLike
Good example of a possible scenario for survival. I guess the NTE term is based on a change in photosynthesis and available oxygen through mass dieoff of phytoplankton. No doubt a mass dieoff of any low food chain will propagate through the system. And I believe this is the critical part here unless its possible for some super runaway warming with +20C over normal average.
I dont subscribe to the NTE idea myself partially because I feel there is too little evidence that there will be a mass dieoff of vital systems to keep our atmosphere breathable. And I know humans are exceptionally resilient.
However, this blog is named “collapse of industrial civilization” which surely is very likely to collapse either from resource scarcity or disruptions or just cost of maintenance as the effects of climate change really sets in. So its Near Term Comfortable Life Extinction for sure if we look at the trends of consumption and limits. No doubt humanity will be facing one of its biggest tragedies, and since there is already 7 billion of us on the planet there will be many suffering.
But I side with you that humanity will survive, although I cannot say in what form as its easy to imagine utopian villages, while in essence survival has traditionally been pretty hard work unless you have abundant food growing around you in the wild. Even if you have, you have to cope with other people, who after all are human. 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed, collapse and shutdown of GIC we have is absolutely different from human sapiens extinction as biological species.
To me, though, it’s perfectly clear that only GIC allows 7+ billions to stay alive. Very soon after GIC’s shutdown, vast majority of world’s population will perish, in my opinion, as there will simply be no way to raise food for them by non-industrial, local means in a much deteriorated, and often even devastated (desertified, salinated, eroded) farmlands.
Thus i’d say that your line “there will be many suffering” is a bit of an understatement; me, i see no alternative than to say: there will be billions dying, many or most of them dying very ugly deaths, with that.
Preparing for this phase is correspondedly difficult and complex. I, for one, foresee all sorts of troubles in the days of dying “big mankind” (as i call it). Up to and including carnivoric cannibalism – humans hunting other humans for meat. One especially striking piece i know points out how universal cannibalism becomes under heavy famine:
”
The group thus survived by collectively making a decision to eat flesh from the bodies of their dead comrades. This decision was not taken lightly, as most were classmates or close friends.
…
All of the passengers were Roman Catholic. According to Read, some equated the act of anthropophagy to the ritual of Holy Communion. Others initially had reservations, though after realizing that it was their only means of staying alive, changed their minds a few days later.
”
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571#Anthropophagy ).
LikeLike
Huh. Off-topic comment this time, especially to cheer up ulv.
Just happened to see one video which makes it rather clear that life on Earth (not humans, but at least “some” life) is pretty much unkillable. From theoretical physics, we know that mind-megaton-blowingly small probability exists that all the atoms which together form up our Sun – would quantum tunnel far away from their current positions, all in the same time. The probability is so small that it’d take a number without any name (so insanely small it is) to write it down. Miles and miles of zeroes after decimal 0, . However, the probability still existant; in other words, in CAN actually happen like… now. Like, anytime. Tomorrow. In an hour. In a year. Any time. Thus this video was made trying to find out what would happen if Sun would indeed just disappear from our sight.
Contains some good bits of physics which never hurt to know, too. I especially like the ending, which implies that global warming or not, there is a chance (however small it is) that one day, billions of years later, this planet would (once again) be habitable by humans, – and might i add, perhaps exactly humans, or very similar species, would develop once again on Earth by then. Enjoy. ^^
LikeLike
Have not yet watched this video, but it’s from a guy calling himself the “progressive cynic”…
Leaked UN Report Indicates Global Warming Nightmare Scenario
This video looks at global warming and the ramifications of the leaked UN report predicting a global sea-level rise of as much as 3 feet by the end of the century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKTsJ6_Azjg
from
Videos: Glen Greenwald and Global Climate Change
LikeLike
Gee, 3 feet? Really? It’s not a “nightmare” – it’s well within medium estimated sea level rise by 2100 by latest papers. Even as a slow-to-get-it place as Sceptical Science has it exactly at that: 0.5…1.5 meters by 2100 ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm ). Which i still see as an underestimate, since methane clathrate gun is still massively underestimated IMHO. “Nightmare” would be nost 3, not even 10 (which i deem quite possible), but full 30 feet by 2100 (which would require some +6…7C warming by 2050 and even higher for the 2nd half of the century, global average that is).
3 feet. “Nightmare”. What can i say…
LOL.
LikeLike
What happened to ;the current level of CO2 of 400ppm corresponds to sea level 23 metres above current level’ ?
LikeLike
Corresponds to 12ome 15+ meters above current level, yes, – but, it takes relatively long time for sea level to “catch up” – to get into equilibrium with CO2. Ice melting require tremendous amounts of energy: to melt 1 ton of ice which was at 0C temperatuer into 1 ton of water which would still be at 0C temperature, one needs same amount of energy it takes to heat 1 ton of water from 0C to ~83C. So you see, year 2100 will still be not an equilibrium state (in absolutely any case, this is for SURE). I.e., additional melting will go on further long after 2100. Especially with additional CO2 still coming in from humans (until industrial civilization collapses) an some of positive feedbacks triggered by climate change (such as increasing amount of forest fires, for example). That’s why and that’s how you don’t see exactly 23 meters by 2100 in people’s predictions. In fact, it will take at least a couple CENTURIES for equilibrium to be practically reached – i.e. for Earth to reach such a state when amount of energy she absorbs from the Sun and amount of heat she radiates back into space – are practically same amounts. Until then, – right now and during next couple centuries, – the Earth is (and will be) absorbing more energy than she radiates into space as heat. This is the essense of increasing greenhouse effect on Earth: increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the athmosphere makes Earth to radiate less energy into space. Excess heat, which remains near Earth surface, is energy. This energy is what melts our Arctic ice and mountain glaciers at an unprecedented pace, warms up lands and oceans. It is calculated that right now, at the moment, this excess energy – amount of heat trapped by all the greenhouse gases we humans added to the athmosphere, – is equivalent of energy which would be produced by detonating 4-5 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs EVERY SECOND.
Then, of course, there is also thermal inertia of oceans and so-called “global dimming” (aerosols, both man-made and from some feedback in climate system) which are very important factors. The latter – global dimming, – is actually a big trap. Currently, it this this process which is “saving” us from already going into very dangerous 2+ degrees C global average warming. However, dimming only works as long as “business as usual” work. Once global industrial civilization shuts down – or even, in all its unlikeness, once global civilization simply stops to burn fossil fuels (nearly) completely, – nearly all man-made aerosols (soot from burning coal, trails from high-altitude jet flights, incomplete combustion particles many diesel engines produce, etc) – will go down; more than 90% of man-made dimming in the athmosphere will disappear from the athmosphere in ~3 ears, i believe. The skies will clear. Megacities’ air pollution will go away. All that will allow much more sunlight to actually hit Earth surface. This process of disappearance of global dimming will result in some 1,2…3,5 degrees C of further warming at current levels (roughly) of dimming – and possibly even more than +3,5 if dimming levels will be higher than today at the time of removal of global dimming.
The trap is, sooner or later, man-made global dimming of the athmosphere WILL disappear. Why? Fossil fuels are main source of dimming (which is true even for spraying aluminium oxides deliberately – geoengineering, – because such a spraying is only possible with the help of large amount of fossil fuel to power all the jets which do the spraying; so no fuel, no more spraying). And, fossil fuels are non-renewable and finite resource. Even now, majority of countries are already in after-peak-oil situation.
The tragedy is, the longer “business as usual” goes on, the bigger after-dimming-goes-away jump in temperatures is likely to be. More and more geoengineering through dimming, more and more coal power stations, cars, trucks etc in “developing” countries – so far, the multi-decadal trend was for the dimming to increase (some good research was done in 1980s because dimming affects agricultural productivity).
That’s why and that’s how exact moment of collapse of global industrial civilization – the moment when most of engines (of all sorts!) will stop to be operated – is a major factor. If it happens very very soon, like in some 10-15 years, then removal of man-made global dimming will be in early 21st century – and there will be much time for further accelerating warming to realize itself, powerful positive kickbacks to become very active, add more warming on top – and there still be few decades still during 21st century when massively elevated temperatures would result in massive ice melt. In this scenario, some 3…8 meters sea level rise by 2100 is possibly what would happen. However, if global industrial civilization somehow manages to remain (mostly) functioning as far as, say, 2050s-2060s, – additional large (quite likely, intentional – so-called “geoengineering”) dimming will most likely be done to prevent runaway warming which otherwise would happen, given the state of the athmosphere. With surface temperatures rise much blocked by this additional dimming for as long as GIC manages to inject increasing amount of dimming aerosols, melting of ice will not be as fast – and when GIC would shutdown in the 2nd half of this century, it’ll take more than a decade for a serious jump in temperatures to start; end result might be fairly little rise of sea level by some 2…4 meters by 2100. Earth is big, and she reacts slowly, proportional to her size. In compare to us humans, at least. But make no mistake, after couple centuries, Earth will get enough of extra “trapped” heat to melt most of both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and it will increase sea level by DOZENS meters indeed.
Poor statue of liberty. We KNOW it’ll sink, if not moved to some higher ground. Anyone fancy to write a bill for US senate to move the old Lady to some mountains? It’d be a shame if the symbol of great opportunities and freedom of USA – would perish long before silly things like egyptian pyramids would be taken by sands and time, eh.
LikeLike
The continued march down the road from covert fascism to overt fascism is a fairly global phenomenon.
This is indicative of the mood in NZ:
‘Calling all concerned citizens!
On September 1st 2013 there will be nationwide rallies which will unite Kiwis who are concerned about the loss of democracy occurring in New Zealand.
This is clear in the government’s handling of the GCSB bill
Foreign control, corporate takeover of education, asset sales, GE food, health, pesticides, unsustainable farming, destructive mining, and the TPPA all have the common theme of destroying our future.
We need to reduce the influence of corporate greed in NZ, and actively encourage democracy and sovereignty by promoting awareness of what is going on.
Auckland March and Rally Sept 1st
Gather at Britomart at 2pm for a march at 2.30.
Walk to Albert Park via Wellesley St and Princes St.
Gather at the band rotunda for speeches and music.
Spread the word!
Thanks,
Lisa Er’
LikeLike
It may look like it’s rather overt fascism, yes. But i have some doubts. See, in the past (say, Hitler regime), goals were to conquer other countries, occupy, genocide as much as deemed desirable, – but in one word, the goal, in the end, was to _rob_ other places. To take good things from other lands and people and use them.
Present day, this goal is usually present, of course, – if on much lower, say, “domestic” proportions, and using less obviously “evil” methods to rob masses. However, i have a suspicion this “old-time” goal – which is, “to rob”, – is not the primary one anymore in many, if not most, cases.
I have a suspicion that nowadays, big words about “concerned about the loss of democracy”, and “we need to encourage sovereignty”, and about “uniting s who are concerned about ” – are used not to create massive offensive potential – say, like a nation which would make lots of weapons and try to conquer its neighbours, – but are used for defense. See, corporations and governments are increasingly threatened by their own working forces and populations, correspondedly. The threat is growing activism and growing understanding of how wrong the ways of corporations and governments are – wihch leads many people to actively oppose the powers that be (which is wrong thing to do – like a cavemen trying to attack a tank, – but many still try, and together can form a significant threat to some parts of pwoers that be). One of methods which corporations and governments use to defend themselves against this – is tricking people (quite many people) into some activities which create an impression of a “good fight” for those who participate, thus preventing them to deal any real and significant harm to powers that be.
Rallying up many people under a banners like improving democracy, opposing foreign control, destructive mining, assest sales – are excellent distractions. It leads large number of otherwise “problematic” people away from issues which, unlike those, could indeed be practically solvable – from what little is actually important and significant, in other words. I mean, how often you hear about some activists, or grass-root organisation, or, say, Greenpeace to _actually_ improve democracy? To prevent large amount of foreign control? To stop destructive large-scale mining? To prevent worst effects of improper assest sales, or sales themselves? Those are things which are all large-scale in terms of money (including mechanisms of managed democracies), and to change ways of things in these subjects is much more than nearly any citizens’ activism or movements could do. So it’s kind of “safe” to steer people to attack those “giants” of GIC, those bastions of political and industrial power. Those and some other bastions would stand anyways. By doing so, powers that be prevent activisits and citizens’ movements from attacking the most weak parts of powers that be – that’s how it’s a method of defense.
So, if it’s defense, then it’s not fascism – at “best”, it’s emulation of some parts of fascism. The difference would be as sigificant as between a living crocodile – and a natural-scale model of one.
So you see, may be it’s not exactly fascism you sense in there, but simply another of those fluid features of inverted totalitarianism. Not that the latter is better than fascism, though – both are similarly damaging systems, i guess (to Gaia and to mankind in particular, long-term).
LikeLike
F.Tnoli, I’ll admit that I don’t bother reading your preposterously overlong comments. (Get a blog, I say!) But I read this one. If you’re saying (with far too many words) that dissent has been coopted and fed back to the dissenters, then I think that’s only part of the dynamic. My sense is that more people are also seeking to exit the normal control systems, partly out of a dawning recognition that those systems have no legitimate future and threaten our survival.
I take the darker view that it’s already over for us and that dissent, while perhaps a moral requirement, is simultaneously irrelevant. Like water that simply goes where it’s gonna go, the culture also set itself on a trajectory that is mindless, destructive, and suicidal. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
LikeLike
Suit yourself, Brutus; it’s totally OK. I surely am not doing best i can too, indeed. >< Can't get me a blog tho. I'd explain why, but… "overlong" you said, besides, reasons to it are not important.
I can't agree with your "the culture" part, though. There is no such "the" culture. Open yours eyes, there are all sorts of cultures. Usually much separated geographically, but come on, you're able user of the internet, i hope – and there are tons of videos about many of those. Here's one for example – and in other comments in this blog alone, i mentioned at least three others.
LikeLike
F T: thanks for taking the time to answer my rant at humanity in general with needless specifics that we all know. Of course what you say is true to some degree, but overall we’re losing our host environment due to our global consumption of every possible resource we can commodify, which I equate to our species’ spectacular failure of following its wants over what would be best to keep us around for a longer term. Apparently, despite all the bright and intelligent humans we have, we’re all participating in this “growth” paradigm (disaster capitalism) and continuing along at breakneck speed to use up and pollute the entire environment (from the ozone layer to the deep ocean) while continuing to increase our population. Hey, BRILLIANT!
So you can keep your well-documented ideas and long-winded happy-talk; to me we’re no better (in effect) than yeast cells in a Petri dish in our mindless consumption and overpopulation. We’re following the same course – use it all up as fast as possible while reproducing as fast as the environment allows and paying no heed to what our (over-hyped by you) brains tell us is immanent collapse. That’s why I equate humanity’s so-called intelligence with either mental illness or “selective reality” (whereby we simply ignore all the “bad” stuff and concentrate on what feels good right now)!
Right now there are at least a dozen, if not more since the last time I looked, positive feedback loops that we’ve triggered (any ONE of which will lead to extinction of our species) and are causing climate chaos. It takes a while for the effects of these to impact humanity, but they aren’t far off and nothing we’re doing now is going to stop any of them. We have enough trouble with just Fukushima (and remember, Chernoby isn’t fixed yet, nor the Gulf of Mexico from another problem) let alone the fact that the way we’re living is causing our demise. The scientists and bright minds tell our fearless leaders about these concerns and THEY IGNORE THEM – and it’s business as usual, day in and day out – until we can’t, I guess. Yeah, that’s some great planning and using our collective intelligence.
I used to believe in humanity, then I took off the rose-colored glasses and looked at reality. We’re killing ourselves and most of the other life on the planet. Opinions don’t mean shit. Mine included.
LikeLike
Fascism is often defined as the melding of corporations, government and the military (Mussolini’s definition, I believe).
Such melding was achieved in the US in by 1920. Many ‘champions of industry’ and bankers admired Hitler, and poured American money into Germany. Some even attempted a coup in the US.
Even Roosevelt, supposedly a champion of the people, was actually a champion of corporations. Whether he turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed during the construction of the Hoover Dam or did not know about them, I cannot say.
When Britain elected a socialist government after WW2 there was outrage in the US, which refused to loan money for reconstruction. It was only after Winston Churchill visited America to beg for money (with the prospect of total collapse into anarchy, or what was considered worse, communism) that the American bankers relented: they did, however, set the interest rate at a punitively high level. Vultures gathered round a carcass, one might say.
After a brief period of isolationism the US began to export ‘soft fascism’ across the globe. Under ‘soft fascism’ corporations and bankers gain control of nations without fighting wars. On the other hand, if nations resist, the military is sent in to hasten matters, as was the case in the 9/11 in Chile, 1973.
LikeLike
Read, “confessions of an economic hit man” by John Perkins. I finally got just how it is done. http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081
Great book.
LikeLike