We are soon off on our second “trip of a lifetime,” this one to New Delhi, Katmandu, a six-day trek in the Himalayas, and then two weeks in Thailand, one of them unscripted.

Our trip to Europe in 2011 changed my outlook on many things. In Italy we saw Italians doing all of the daily jobs from waiting tables to driving buses. Imagine! Switzerland was just as imagined. Prague was enchanting, and the John Lennon Wall gave me an idea of the power and reach of this man. There are cathedrals everywhere, but deeply embedded in them are hints of the real history of religion – sun worship and astrology. The Vatican had the feel of powerful military fortress, and a long hallway of statues with all of the male genitalia chopped off spoke volumes on Catholicism. Countries on the euro are expensive. Those not are much more affordable, though the standard if living is very high throughout (except perhaps Hungary as we saw it in our brief glimpse*).

Continue reading “Soon to be Asia-bound” →

Controls on the House and Senate are pervasive – they are on leashes, and kept from bolting by threats and bribes. NSA does not keep tabs on people for nothing, and long before there was an NSA, there was Hoover and the FBI with a dossier on everyone in DC. Even if that were not the case, they don’t get campaign money, open or secret, unless they play ball.

So the question we should be asking is why a small band of house members are being allowed to shut down 22% of the government. It’s either misdirection or distraction, or both. To what end? I say Obama is in cloaking mode again, positioning to attack social programs. But that’s speculation based on his past behavior, and I even contradict myself, as I don’t believe he’s anything more than a sock puppet. But merely substitute “the executive” for Obama, and I fall better into line with myself.

Others say something far more reaching is at play, the fact that we’ve been in recession/depression for his entire presidency. But I don’t see how removal of the stimulus of government spending does anything more than exacerbate that situation. It would mean that they want to exacerbate it, and that is puzzling.

Surely there’s more than I see. Please enlighten me!

The passages below were written by Carroll Quigley in a much-maligned and misinterpreted book published in 1966 about the period 1922-30, Tragedy and Hope. They could have easily been written in our post-Glass-Steagall era:

It [financial capitalism] invested capital not because it desired to increase the output of goods or services but because it desired to float issues (frequently excess issues) of securities on this productive basis. It built railroads in order to sell securities, not in order to transport goods; it constructed great steel corporations to sell securities, not in order to make steel, and so on. But, incidentally, it greatly increased the transport of goods, the output of steel, and the production of other goods. By the middle of the stage of financial capitalism, however, the organization of financial capitalism had evolved to a highly sophisticated level of security promotion and speculation which did not require any productive investment as a basis. Corporations were built upon corporations in the form of holding companies, so that securities were issued in huge quantities, bringing profitable fees and commissions to financial capitalists without any increase in economic production whatever. Indeed, these financial capitalists discovered that they could not only make killings out of the issuing of such securities, they could also make killings out of the bankruptcy of such corporations, through the fees and commissions of reorganization. A very pleasant cycle of flotation, bankruptcy, flotation, bankruptcy began to be practiced by these financial capitalists. The more excessive the flotation, the greater the profits, and the more imminent the bankruptcy. The more frequent the bankruptcy, the greater the profits of reorganization and the sooner the opportunity of another excessive flotation with its accompanying profits. This excessive stage reached its highest peak only in the United States. In Europe it was achieved only in isolated cases. (p336)

A few paragraphs later, he describes an obvious side-effect to corporate structure in an era where we need to raise huge amounts of concentrated capital to achieve large project:

The efforts of financiers to separate ownership from control were aided by the great capital demands of modern industry. Such demands for capital made necessary the corporation form of business organization. This inevitably brings together the capital owned by a large number of persons to create an enterprise controlled by a small number of persons. The financiers did all they could to make the former number as large as possible and the latter number as small as possible. The former was achieved by stock splitting, issuing securities of low par value, and by high-pressure security salesmanship. The latter was achieved by plural-voting stock, nonvoting stock, pyramiding of holding companies, election of directors by cooptation, and similar techniques. The result of this was that larger and larger aggregates of wealth fell into the control of smaller and smaller groups of men. (p337)

It stands to reason that such a structure should not be granted “personhood.” It’s an invitation to tyranny.

Lizard, a good writer and smart man, offers up the following in a piece on treatment of homeless people and victims of natural disasters in our brave new world:

Establishing that this meme is crank terrain is standard operating procedure when it comes to any subject covered by Alex Jones and the other circus animals that populate conspiracy culture…

It’s a good piece, and I have no quarrel with him, including the small bit at the opening that I cite above. I am just using that as a gateway to the world he speaks of, as I have traveled it, and even understand it. If you have confidence in your intellectual abilities and a reserve of solid judgment to be able to examine evidence without being subject to the group mind, such a journey can be useful.

In Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith manages to break free of the total information control system, a remarkable accomplishment. Searching for answers, looking for escape, he finds O’Brien, supposedly the leader of an organized resistance group. In the end he learns that O’Brien’s job was to monitor people like Smith and his lover Julia, and to offer them hope. He then crushed that hope, and they were reintegrated into the system. It is a most unhappy ending.

Orwell’s dystopia is set in England, and is well-known throughout the world. Here in the US it is widely circulated, even taught in schools. A casual survey of those who have read it would probably yield general notion that the book is about Stalinism. On the right, the word “Ingsoc” clues them to its real purpose: to warn of the dangers of socialism, even as Orwell bluntly stated that he was a socialist.

The book is about totalitarianism. It don’t see a hint of ideology in it, but emphasize “total.” Alex Jones is one of our many O’Brien’s, guarding the perimeters of the village. If you are smart enough to work your way out of the normal system of TV, education and movies, Jones will take you to another dead-end. “Total” means just that – escape from one prison leads to another. “Prison Planet” is highly apropos.

I find Jones unpleasant and untrustworthy. But I understand those who do like him and wish them well on their journey. Jones is but one stop on the road to freedom. His type of work is called a “limited hangout,” that is much of what he says might be true, but never enough to be truly enlightening. Any who openly associate with him are branded with his vile nature and anger, his raspy voice and instant certainty on all matters. That’s Lizard’s reaction above, and the intended effect of Alex Jones. He’s like a FEMA camp, a haven but also a place for quarantine, multi-purposed.

Please do move on. Eventually you’ll find yourself among people of your own kind. They don’t hammer you with information or try to organize you for a cause. They are the few who truly understand the meaning of “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the spirit.” They take solace in one another, and explore life in all of its intricacy. It’s a self-guided journey. Truly public-spirited people do not tell you what to think. They only advise that you exercise your cranium.

In the meantime, our only true “mission” is to help those in our very small circles as we can – friends, family and acquaintances, and to receive their help and solace as well.