Published on 23 May 2012 by Channel4News
An interesting interview where Eric Schmidt (head of Google) seems to on the one hand point to social reform and popular revolution in Europe and on the other had and new form of Google Totalitarianism.
He does make the obvious point, that austerity is doomed. Its negativity will just breed more negativity and conflict. We need to reform out systems, Media, Politics, Banks and stop the controlling influence of “Special Interest Groups”.
De•mo•cra•cy— n. a system of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
To•tal•i•tar•i•an•ism— n. a system of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens’ lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority.
(Britannica Concise Encyclopedia)
All culture is essentially exclusionary; beliefs and practices distinguish one people from another precisely because they are different. The two systems of government defined above, for example, look as dissimilar as any two dissimilar things could possibly be. One depicts a society of self-governing free citizens; the other depicts its polar opposite.
For much of the last 100 years, these two systems of government were in a state of war (hot or cold), and out of this bi-polar world came the Western, democratic conceit that ours is the best of all possible worlds: free elections vs. rigged elections; rule of law vs. police state; civil society vs. coerced conformity; peace vs. war.
To all intents and purposes, this superiority complex dates to 1945 with the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and effectively ended in 1989 with “victory” over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Having defeated both communism and fascism (however defined) we wallowed in our own crapulence, the din of triumphalism drowning out any understanding of how our nemeses helped form our democratic identity. In fact, we have gone out of our way not to learn.
German fascism, for example, has been stripped of historical context and made into a cartoonish stereotype with its proponents reduced to simplistic pejorative clichés. Don’t like Iran’s president? Liken him to Hitler. Want to shut down criticism of Israeli war crimes? Play the Jew-as-victim card and invoke the Holocaust®. Don’t like having to obey a strict rule? Call the enforcer a fascist.
Yet if we do not make the effort to understand the Nazis, how do we avoid becoming like them in their absence? Hitler singled out Jews for persecution because he believed they represented a threat to the German people and were responsible for Germany’s failure in World War I. Though they were full citizens of Germany, Jews were not afforded protection to which they were entitled under the laws of the 1919 Weimar Constitution.
Democracies today single out Muslims for persecution—torture, denial of due process, warrantless searches, indefinite detention, assassination—because they are deemed to be “terrorists.” The rule of law does not apply to them, or for that matter to any citizen who protests official edicts. So how, exactly, does our persecutory police state differ from Hitler’s? How is it proper to flog the dogma that Hitler and the Nazis were evil, when we are so similar?
“Communism,” “Russia” and “Stalin” are abused even more, largely because they symbolized everything opposed to our worship of the individual and the Labour Theory of Value. We condemned the Soviet Union and other “red” countries for their centralized, planned economies that treated their people as mere economic factors of production for a soulless state-run apparatus.
We, on the other hand, are expected to accept the dogma that governmental control of the nation must be kept to an absolute minimum. Regulation, even taxation itself, is an attack on a corporation’s god-given right to maximize profit and exploit people’s labour. Raising taxes to pay for such public services as medical care, the post office, parks, broadcasting, government oversight agencies, or education is hysterically denounced as “socialist” or “communist” because redistributing wealth is something that “communists” do.
For example, when Israel’s U.S. governor Barack Obama, in one of his few acts on behalf of the American people, tried to bring in a national health-care program to ensure that all citizens had a basic level of care, he was vilified as “communist,” and had his program mocked as “Obamacare.” In our “free” world, constitutional protections against exploitative economic or political extremism are being eviscerated as governments rewrite legislation to serve the new robber barons.
In a democracy, public spending does not equate with ruthless, centralized government. Citizens are people, not serfs, and the state exists to serve their interests, not the other way around. But anti-statist prejudice in Canada and the U.S. has reached such extremes that debate over the merit of social welfare is anathematized. The quasi-religious embrace of low corporate taxes, corporate lawlessness, and social Darwinism for everyone else have reduced free citizens to economic inputs in a parasitic corporatocracy.
The public good, far from being the summum bonum of our society, has been reduced to an accidental by-product of private greed. So, exactly, how is our “democracy” any different from the repressive communist societies we once held in contempt?
We used to boast that the free press was a defining characteristic of a democracy, that the press wasn’t merely a propaganda tool of the state. When I was in university, it was common to deride the Soviet daily newspaper Pravda as typical of false, inflammatory, distorted news. Yet we now know that the New York Times deliberately larded its Middle East reporting with false, inflammatory, distorted “news”—led by Pentagon stenographer Judith Miller—and these distortions were integral to selling unprovoked military aggression to the U.S. public.
Now, outright media fraud could become law. As columnist Juan Cole reports: “Two congressmen are attempting to insert a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the Department of Defense to subject the U.S. domestic public to propaganda. The bipartisan amendment was introduced by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.” Just how is our press superior to the state controlled propaganda mill of the former Soviet Union?
The contrast at the top of this essay isn’t really a contrast at all. It’s s false dichotomy. Our democracy is mutating into “democratic totalitarianism” because our victory over fascists and communists has caused our governments to take over their totalitarian roles. It is March 23, 1933. We are at war, but this time the enemy is us, and the war we will fight will be a civil one.
There is a lot of talk about Israel as the State for Jews being bad for Jews worldwide, engendering increasing anti-Israel as well as anti-Jewish sentiment, but I submit that it is primarily bad for Jewish Power, the so-called Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), insofar as it throws an unwelcome spotlight on it. There have always been subscribers to the Protocols but until relatively recently they have been easily dismissed if not ostracized as anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, and Jews have managed to restrict the gentile book-keeping of influential Jews to counting the Jews on the Nobel Prize winners list.
Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians whose land they took over has been beyond despicable from the very beginnings of the state yet a well-organized hasbara has managed to inculcate into the minds of the Western Goyim the dichotomy: Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims = terrorists vs Israeli Jews = peace-loving, long-suffering victims. Not so anymore. Israel is no longer seen as even a “legitimate” state but a rogue nuclear power, a racist, expansionist war criminal and war monger. Of more concern, in attracting scrutiny of its successful flouting of international laws, it has led to an examination of what exactly allows it to act with complete impunity. It has exposed the lines of power that move the governments of the major world powers, like puppets on a string, to act as its enablers, indeed as its agents. The lines are now seen by more people than ever before to lead to the jewish lobbies, to the ZPC, which does not reside in Israel, but permeates the power centers of the US and the UK, and not only.
The ZPC needs Israel, the flag under which the sayanim can be rallied to march in lockstep (notwithstanding the minor kvetchings that serve to depict “plurality” and “diversity” of Jewish opinion) and to do its work in the “diaspora.” Without Israel the very useful concept of “diaspora” could not exist and the Jews might take it into their heads that they are nationals and citizens of their own countries first, foremost and last. Israel is a boon for the ZPC.
But what kind of Israel would serve the ZPC best? Definitely not the one in existence. The Palestinian “problem” has not only refused to go away in more than six decades, it has in fact grown due to Israel’s egregious actions (and its lack of action) into an impossible to hide or paper over hideous contradiction of Israel’s hasbara posters of itself. More and more people, organizations and governments worldwide are reacting to the reality staring them in the face, and concerted Jewish blackmail or cajoling is not making them back down any more. Israel is a bane to the ZPC.
These facts are recognized by the likes of big ZPC movers and shakers like Soros and by new Jewish organizations like J Street, who seek to address them, while the old guard — AIPAC, ADL and its dershes refuse to do so, not only because they think it can still be all made to go away with the old “Anti-semitism!” cudgel, but also because, on a personal level, they fear the new gang would eventually make them unclasp their paws from the high branch on which they have been perched for so long.
The ZPC needs an Israel it can both wave to the sayanim as the heart-touching symbol, the call to arms, the reproach, the unity symbol, the house that Yad Vashem built, as well as a world-wide sellable story of the success of Jews–a nation like any other (just a little bit more so…), peace-loving (say Shalom loudly and say it often), long-suffering, democratic, moral and just.
If that is what the ZPC needs then they must think that Israel is run by complete idiots. Their idiots but catastrophic idiots nonetheless. Their inability to solve the Palestine problem in the simplest and most advantageous way is proof of it.
What would happen if Israel became one state legally, not just militarily and, where it really counts, de facto, as it is now, and if the Palestinian refugees who wished to return would be allowed to do so? The Jews may become a minority in Israel. So? Is it a problem for the ZPC and indeed for jews in the US and the UK that they are a tiny minority there? Why would it be a problem in Israel? The “demographic bomb” nonsense ignores the reality of Jewish Power. Were Jews to become a minority in a putative Palestine-Israel state, their status might well emerge elevated for all practical and political purposes. They would become the minority to watch for and protect like nobody’s business. What’s not to like in this?
Attractions for the Israeli Jews in the new Formerly Known as Israel (FKI) state: they can have a Jewish Lobby there, and an ADL too! Jewish historians will be busy writing a Revised Revisionist history, recounting their ethnic cleansing in the FKI state during which, say, 600,000 Jews disappeared. They can have it all, the same, yet new and cleaned up.
Most of all, the highly inconvenient spotlight on the Jewish Power worldwide could be turned off and everything would be business as usual again quietly. Critics of the ZPC, of any and all its aspects, from the international banking to the media ownership and the political levers of power in the governments of the major powers will more easily be made into crass “anti-semites” again.
Israel could stop being a bane for the ZPC if only the ZPC “deciders” were really as smart as they are supposed to be, according to the ethnic hype. This is just a Goyische opinion but it is offered freely to zionist plagiarists.
It’s a hoot ~ JB
Gala night @ The London International Documentary Festival
World Premiere Watch trailer
Golriz Kolahi | United Kingdom | 62 mins
“Gilad and all that Jazz” is a portrait of one of the modern era’s best saxophonists; a man who has stolen hearts with the sounds of his sax and angered many with his political activities.
A gentle giant, warm, charismatic and somewhat shy, Gilad Atzmon is a complex character. Born into an Israeli, pro-Zionist family and serving briefly in the first Lebanon War of 1982, Gilad had a dramatic turnaround; he quit the army, picked up his sax and exiled himself to London, declaring himself an enemy to the Israeli state. Since then he has produced some of the modern era’s greatest Jazz albums, and collaborated with the likes of Ian Dury, Paul McCartney and Sinead O’ Connor.
In music he is a ‘feisty improviser’ as one critic put it, comparing him to the likes of Charlie Parker. In his political and philosophical ideas, he is blunt and outspoken. His ideas on Israel and “Jewishness” have upset many people. He has enemies from every camp; the left, Pro-Palestinians believe he is feeding the Zionist machine with his anti Semitic ideas and that he is damaging the cause of the Palestinians. The right, pro-Zionists are upset by his “anti-Semitic” rhetoric and his growing popularity within the Arab world.