The Owl is in Harrogate
The New Mind War
Theme No. I
Addressing Criticism. Our Society. In Transit to Where?
“Without memory of our past in its entirety, there is no limit to the presence and form of the machines that will, if we allow them, run rampant throughout the present time. Without memory of our past in its entirety, we are in danger of becoming little more than automata, nothing more than creatures devoid of creative capacity, incapable of introspection, less, to know beauty and thus, to project it.”
In view of what the New Mind War intends, that our targets think and behave as we want them to, and that in the design is a fundamentally important issue which is that we demonstrate understanding of our own society in much more than the superficial.
Let’s look deeply (and briefly), and ask the following questions :
Is there malaise and sickness enveloping our society? I refer to rage, to widespread feelings of betrayal, neither of which is captured and explained via the ways in which much if not all is presented? Further, and by implication; what is presented and how?
Let’s look at what is happening, at the severe economic and emotional implications of change, this, from an agrarian society to industrial, from that of industrial to the current era of largely (and arguably) de-industrialization.
Are our democratic institutions fading, specifically the Welfare State? If so what will replace it and who are the architects? Who are their influencers?
Certain people are pointing to the rise of a militarized state and the concentration of national wealth into a tiny faction of corrupt bankers and corporations. Is this so?
To what extent are we turning to our most imaginative minds, to writers, to our poets and artists, so to view and understand the true nature of ourselves, our true identity. I think that we are but not all fully agree.
What does it means to be human in this particular moment in human history?
Who are considered to be the marginalized, the neglected and demonized by society, the ones cast out?
An interesting point to highlight here is how we see others who are influencing our nation. We must feel deep empathy in our showing of what has been done to the vulnerable of their societies, for example; the very obviously disenfranchised working class, the people of colour in their no less than mutation of slavery.
Is the fundamental story laid out before us that of the oppressors and those oppressed? Is this an accurate assessment? I think not here in the United Kingdom, but definintely true of the United States. Are we morphing into them?
By virtue of our institutions, the Welfare State, we must illuminate and protect the dignity of those who have, to date, been cast aside by corporate capitalism.
The forces done to us; as a nation, as individuals – is now completely articulated and expressed in full, what in the past was hidden within the structure of the corporate, economic and political interlocked structure. We were not so very conscious of this process during the 1970s and 1980s – now it is very clear to us.
In parallel during the intervening years, the presence of that controlling power has itself become invisible to those who are controlled.
Generations pass, within fifteen to twenty years, memory of things does fade to nothing, and so each successive generation looks upon its present experience as if it had no past at all.
It is remarkable the extent to which, I mean, the speed to which memory becomes lost. No one lives with anyone older than are they, generally. Unlike in the People’s Republic of China, where it is not unusual for generations illustrative of three centuries to live in the same houshold – the pace of change has been so very sudden.
Without memory of the past, its achievement, its sacrifice, there are no limits to radical evil.
If we cannot take measurement of the present via appeal to anything else, through any comparison we make, there is a problem.
If we cannot take its measure then we cannot judge it, nor evaluate it, we cannot take a moral position with regard to it. This state of being is what we are morphing toward, more than ever.
There is an inability to look at, to comprehend, to accept inexplicable events, disasters such as 9/11, how to explain them, who to blame. As a consequence we require scapegoats.
The forces of destruction are instilled upon people – those cast aside by a capitalist system, by having to grow up in a dysfunctional society. People are unable to function as people – abandonment is the natural consequence of poverty.
If one lifts the rock of bourgeoisie respectability one sees beneath to which there are other types of realities particular to certain places – true across the spectrum of humanity.
The majority are the poor, the poor are everywhere upon the planet – the poor are not a minority.
We need to inhabit the life world of those who are different than are we.
Race is a central theme of understanding of any society. Race is fundamentally important in understanding who we are. The power steals that require genocidal relation to people who are not white Europeans. It has always been this way.
Themes are borne out by time – the living in a racial fantasy, persistent throughout.
Domestic violence, poverty, racism, the marginalized – have to know what they feel like.
Our understanding of other cultures (within and without) is axiomatic.
The enslaving of other human beings is an attribute of the insane – a demonic aspect even, unfortunately an attribute of most of humanity.
Falseness, deception, triviality of the whole world. We have to expose this.
The digital age; emotional impoverishment of this era, the disconnectedness, digitalization of every aspect of personal, economic and political lives – is a central facet.
Is evolution into adult life made much more difficult? Is it akin to living through a veil? If so we need to show that there is no genuine outside experience, that there is no point of comparison via living in the present.
That there is no life now without what is located on a screen – this alters the whole perceptual apparatus of the person.
We vomit up presidents and prime ministers, politicians, from decaying and decayed societies – we have them in place, this is inevitable.
These people surround themselves with multi-millionaires and generals – oligarchies are in existence, here the seeds of which developed from thirty years ago.
Narcissism, cruelty, selfishness, dishonesty – the embodiment to forces we should not want.
Are we in trouble. Might the whole world be in trouble?
A stated, the ones most aware of the undercurrents that were shaping natural destiny have been introspective, imaginative thinkers.
We must see in the faces of others, ourselves, but are we actually able? Some are saying that we cannot, we are very essentially unable.
30 07 2017
Regarding the state of the nation at this present time
The following is a criticism I took from an internet discussion group. What I wanted to do was to address exactly what constitutes the basis of this person’s statement. To examine the underlying policy (the economic, and the philosophical) framework causing him/her to feel this way. We need to engage this procedure, so to demonstrate that we understand where people are coming from, if we do not understand where people are coming from we are not only working in the dark, but risk losing the point of our efforts. Remember that hundreds of thousands of our citizens have recently taken to the streets demanding the government resign.
Quote taken from an internet discussion group :
”We are not one of those who have the luxury of a well-paid job for life managing; greed, arms deals, wars, trade deficits, credit crunches, downturns, recessions, discrimination’s, industrial disputes, falsification’s, conflict’s, redundancy, stigmatisation’s, and elitism
For we are not one of them that wangled luxury from constructing such a system in favour of the few at the expense of the myriad abused, by that egocentricity feeding it’s gluttony whilst children are maimed by shrapnel and poisoned by chemical weapons manufactured by radical enterprise receiving subsidy from contemporaneous diligence.
If democracy is being sacrificed to save those using electorate monies and loans to prop up banks, pay themselves salary increases above other public servants and buy DUP support, then the public should demand Her Majesty regard such as not acting in the interest of the nation and dissolve parliament, she has that duty to perform…”
So what is it that forms the basis of this person’s statement?
My response (C-IV) as follows :
The person above is referring to the policy in action of ‘neoliberalism’. A framework dedicated to the destruction of the possibility of organized human life, one might assume?
The principles of neoliberalism are laid out and organized via the concentration of wealth and power. Is this reducing democracy, this is the question? Is neoliberalism gradualyl marginalizing populations – reducing the role of the general population in decision making and the public arena?
This does appear as an expected and predictable consequence of the introduction of the transition to what have been neoliberal principles of the 1970s onwards.
Basically, post war re-newist socioeconomic history. From 1950s and 1960s, where regulated capitalism, high growth – move toward social justice was apparent, a substantial increase in democratic participation. All of this had various effects, one of these effects being the falling rate of profit. Another effect was that people became too engaged in public affairs (an excess of democracy – as is the accusation).
This latter view is not uncommon among those who own the world (those the person in the quote refers), trustees of universities included, to not allow this to run rampant is the impact of right-wing think tanks.
So, too much industrial democracy in the 1960s, that is, usually passive people becoming engaged in the public arena. Resulting in too much pressure placed upon the state – so therefore the requirement was to turn these people into what can be called apathetic.
Neoliberalism presents a very stark contrast with the ideology of Aristotle – a wholly different perception – to resolve the equality the division between rich and poor – one must resolve inequality.
Neoliberalism – moreover, to seek for the indoctrination of the young, to prevent student participation in protest (by design – including designing out the requisite physical space). To make students debt enslaved. That is, to reconfigure the ideology into a neoliberal form.
The above illustrates an articulation of the liberal elite consensus on these issues. The institutions responsible have to do this – they have to indoctrinate the young. That is, they should not be allowed to think, to challenge, as education is encouraged to do – according to neoliberalism, students are questioning too many eternal verities, including that there has to be elite domination and control – there appears an expression of this all the way through.
This led to a great many developments – to continue with the education example, business models imposed on colleges and universities – a tremendous growth of beaurocracy – more forms of control in universities from faculty control to beaurocratic control – the raising of tuition fees has a very strong disciplinary effect – the burdon of debt along with cutbacks in state funding (US).
The idea in the USA, of which arguably, the UK models itself (re; Thatcherist legacy and the current Conservative government under Theresa May) – notion of ‘Anti-Americanism’ – only exists as a concept in totalitarian systems – a very striking concept (re; The Patriot Act) i.e. if one is critical of policy, one is anti-American. To challenge authority one is thus defined as in opposition to the culture and to society itself.
Neoliberalism : During the 1970s there were attempts to shift decisions away from the public arena to what is referred to as ‘the market’.
Basically it is the idea – privatize everything, reduce the role of the public institutions, encourage the growth of financial institutions. Via a network of policies of this kind, the ideology claims that it is increasing freedom but it is not, according to the person in the quote above), it is increasing totalitarianism / oppression / tyranny. It means that instead of decisions and choices being made in the public arenas, i.e. the public has some kind of role in the state – the shifting of this is to ‘private tyrannies’ – the corporate sector, highly monopolized oligarchs.
This produces an enormous growth in the financial sector. During the 1950s and 1960s banks were banks. From the early 1970s this role shifted dramatically toward an epic increase in speculation, the use of complex financial instruments. Basically, the making of money by manipulating money. During the 1990s came the decline of manufacturing – this was a specific policy decision, consequentially a majority of the population went in to stagnation and decline.
Neoliberalism is placing the working people of the world into competition, but not allowing freedom of capital (high protection for capital). Intellectual property rights, patent rights, eg. Microsoft monopoly cannot be challenged. Mega corporations have extraordinary rights, they have and demonstrate high power.
Going back to Adam Smith capitalism is based upon the free circulation of labour – this is not neoliberalism, which is the opposite. More, the creating of worker insecurity by design – keep wages down, stopping workers from asking for benefits, keeping inflation low, but profits high.
There has undeniably been a sharp reduction in the taxation of the wealthy since the 1960s, in conjunction with other devices such that the corporate sector can avoid taxes. (C-IV)
19 07 2016
What is seen as being the problem at the moment? By who, toward who / what?
Is it the reducing of democracy? – That is, by the shaping of the ideology, by redesigning the power base?
Attacking the team spirit – which is the concern for the fate of others, that we care whether others can manage. Social security / Welfare State – i.e. we care that others can cope, that others have sufficient food to eat. The institutions that were built on team spirit – are the labour movement / the trade unions – the ethos of all being in it together / sharing common goals. The function of a society built on a ‘’war on want’’.
In this, it is seen as important, via the facility for people to defend themselves – if one is alone against concentrated power, one does not stand a chance.
If people are working together they do have a chance, which is the power of the majority to defend one’s rights, and to defend the rights of others.
It is also a simple ethical principle – i.e. to care about others.
The icons of neoliberalism, such as Adam Smith – He regarded sympathy as the most fundamental human emotion. Notion of unseen hand. Suppose some landlord accumulated most of the land where people didn’t have any. Adam Smith – it would not matter so much because of the natural sympathy of the landowner for the fate of the others. The landlord would ensure that there is some sort of egalitarian distribution of resources. So as if by an unseen hand we would be saved from the destruction of the concentration of power – This was Adam Smith and one must compare this with what is now called ‘’libertarianism’’ – i.e. we take what we want. Margaret Thatcher – ‘there is no society only an ideal, not a description’.
The French aristocracy – turning society into a ‘sack of potatoes’ – i.e. individuals en-masse cannot participate or function. This is the neoliberal ideal which Thatcher stated accurately.
The capture of regulatory agencies by the very industries they are regulating. Regulators are often closely linked to the industries that they are regulating.
A revolving door technique –those who have control of the resources can offer all kinds of inducements – so to ensure that kind of regulation that takes place is in their interests.
Popular movements – pressure thereof – working hours, safety, pay, to be successful how sympathetic is the govt. in power toward popular movements?
The concept of the ‘Nanny State’ (Chomsky) – i.e. a state which provides gifts to sectors that have the power, or can demand it. Subsidies to the oil, gas industries. Billions given to the fossil fuel industry.
Take the case of the financial industries which have exploded. IMF – determined the source of the profits of the six largest US banks – entirely financed by public subsidy through the indirect effects of the guarantee – There is an implicit guarantee that they are not going to fail – inflated credit ratings. If anything goes wrong the public will bail them out. Everywhere you look is massive subsidy – high tech economy almost invariably is traced back to public subsidy in the state’s sector of the economy.
Risky and creative work is handed over to private corporations for profit – protected by monopoly pricing rates.
Elections : Campaign spending is a very good predictor of electability. Campaign funding – is almost a perfect predictor of who is going to win.
Breaking of the labour movement – to keep the rabble in line. Labour history is violent – also look at the USA. Hundreds of labour workers were murdered for their actions at a time when this was unheard of in Europe. By the 1920s the labour movement was smashed, wiped out. Revived in the 1930s under the breakdown of capitalism – after the Great Depression – powerful labour movement with many co-structure effects on society. Put on hold during the war. After the war the attacks on labour continued with McCarthyism. Attacks on labour came the ideology of (i) demonizing of the govt. (ii) tactic used by politicians to talk about jobs never talk about profits.
‘’Profit’’ – When a politician says ‘’I want to defend jobs’’ really means; ‘’I want to defend profit’’. This is a device like free trade others use to mask policies that are in fact oriented towards profit.
Attacks on labour are very significant because the labour movement is the one major organization in which much of the general working public can organize, get together, make decisions, even have education programmes. It is about building communities, awareness.
Indoctrination of the public : What done to consciousness? The PR industry is huge, developed in the most free societies in the world out of a recognition not enough freedom had been won that people cannot be controlled by physical force – so therefore control opinions and attitudes – quire explicit. The public really has no role in public affairs – they should be spectators, not participants. Then who are deemed responsible men and women (men only in some societies) should really run things in the interests of the general public, who are stupid and ignorant.
Also driving people towards what the business press call the fashionable / superficial things of life. If you can direct people to spend their time buying the latest gadget. This is an essential feature of liberal democratic theories and goes way back.
Fashionable things – such as fashionable consumption – uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. This is an interesting concept in economics – markets are based on informed consumers making rational choices. It is overlooked that we have a huge expenditure of hundreds of billions per year trying to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices.
Elections also create an uninformed electorate who will make irrational choices against their own interests.
Last US election example : A particular striking feature of it was that issues were ignored in favour of personalities.
We are facing two existential threats / crises: one which has been going on for a while is the very real threat of nuclear war, two, is the threat of environmental catastrophe. If you look at how much of each was covered in the last two US elections – talk about the marginal issues.
There is a media principle which pays attention to what is happening within the beltway if you can repeat accurately, talk about gossip, bias – in the beltway is what is important to power, keep to that.
Marginalization of the population :
Make sure that the public is what Marx called ‘the sack of potatoes’ – an amorphous mass. What Thatcher called ‘the elimination of society’ i.e. just have atomized / scattered individuals who are not linked to one another, not connected by active, functioning organizations.
This creates an unfocused anger that supports political figures whose goal is to harm them, the population, as much as possible. What you see dramatically in the US, all over the industrial world. There is a tremendous amount of anger, hatred of institutions, collapse of centrist political organizations – some of it is organized and effective – Sanders campaign in the US, Corbyn in the UK. A lot of this is just basically anger – we are being badly treated which is correct, no one is paying attention to us, which is correct, no one is representing our interests, which is correct. It is the perfect situation for the demagogue to appear and say, ‘’ I am the person who is going to protect you so just believe what I say. I am going to bring jobs, make the country great…Meanwhile the focus of the television attention in the background my associates are busy passing legislation, issuing directives which are undermining and destroying you.
In a society based on control by private wealth, the society reflects those values – which are : greed, – and maximization of personal gain at the expense of the other. A global society based on this principle is heading for calamity.
The environmental crises – this is very real and it is not centuries away, but imminent, next few decades. If individuals are geared to maximizing their own individual gain – fastest car, etc. uses much fossil fuel as I can and forget whether my or anyone else’s grandchildren will suffer, tens of millions of people in Bangladesh who to be inundated by sea level rises – it’s not my business. This is inherent within a market society based on individual gain and greed, lack of concern for others.
Secret Intelligence Service
Copyright (c) 2017. All rights reserved
The New Mind War
Secret Intelligence Service
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum
The Owl is Vigilant