John Pilger often gets short shrift from the conservative cohort of OLO (and beyond) who don't have a clue that they're they're the same (only lesser; even more credulous and to be pitied) kind of political eunuch as the professional minions Pilger paints here.
Indeed these are the most conservative of times, where the pursuit of wealth and shallow materialism utterly defeats idealism, whose last refuge is the church, itself possessed of the same materially-compensated defeatism.
Neoliberal ideology reigns supreme and even most of those who squirm uncomfortably in their intellectual confinement are resigned that there is "no alternative" to the rapacious corporate dispensation in which we serve.
It's not only the executive and managerial classes that have been "incorporated" with share options, but what amounts to token financial interest, in the form of shares in the modern company, discounted or distributed as largesse, have for decades been distributed down the employment chain by savvy employers. Governments meanwhile have commonly dumped accords in favour of contract labour or contract bargaining—often ludicrously one-sided negotiations between management and representative employee committees.
Even the lowliest workers are patronised with "career paths" and "team responsibilities". Blue-collar workers supposedly emerge as winners from such organisational enhancements, less ‘alienated’ than before, because they're made "responsible" for their mop and bucket, their work is thereby ‘enriched’.
What really cuts the deal of course are the lounge-room rewards--the latest entertainments.
What Pilger is lamenting is the increasing inability, en masse, of people to radically criticise institutionalised neoliberal patronage

Dear John, one of the great tragedies of modern activism is that is has actually caused much of what it sought to avoid.

It has taken the emergence of Arab opposition to despotic dictatorships for activists to realize the harm activists have done.

In focusing western media attention upon such issues as Israel/Palestinian conflicts, activists have for many years diverted attention away from the fact that it is the despotic dictatorships that are actually responsible for the lack of social equity and justice and not the big bad “West”. This is evidenced, much to your disappointment, by the fact that they are rebelling against their own leaderships and not the West.

This leaves you with the unpleasant recognition that activists have and continue to encourage the Palestinians to fight your activist causes by proxy. Painful though this may be, it is time for pulling back the Palestinians from the “march of folly” upon which you have encouraged them to embark.

As you can clearly see from the declining equity the Palestinians have in any negotiations, the longer this goes on, the less equity they have. It is western activists that have encouraged this protracted conflict at the expense of the Palestinians.

Now the activists face the awful reality of what they have done “to” the Palestinians rather than doing something “for” them.

This reality is not being driven by the Palestinians or the Activists. It is being driven by the oppressed nations of the Arab world. That leaves you and your activist brethren out in the cold light of reality, facing some very hard scrutiny.

In shifting the new battle front against the “big end” of town and related public policy, are we to interpret this as another diversion whilst you work out what the real world is doing to your credibility?

IMHO it is time for a context and relevance check.

Probably for the first time in my life I found myself nodding in agreement as I read one of Pilger’s rants.

What is happening here?

Am I going senile? If so, how would I know?

Has Pilger changed?

Have I changed? I’m not aware that I have.

Is this just a fluke?

I think the last is probably correct. Pilger is a prolific writer who expresses a wide variety of views on a multitude of topics. I’m quite opinionated myself. Just occasionally, by sheet chance, our opinions would be in broad, though far from perfect, agreement.

On a more serious note I do think that the current paradigm in many Western countries serves corporate interests TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE CITIZENS.

I’ve capitalised the last part of the above sentence because it’s an important qualifier. This is not a zero-sum game and quite often corporate interests and human interests are aligned. Often what’s good for business really is good for most people.

But right now, from pollution to taxation to trade policy to media policy corporate interests seem to be running roughshod over people’s rights.

I suppose where we would differ is in the solutions we espouse. I think a dirigiste approach would make a bad situation worse. In some cases less government might be better.

For example I think the banks should have been allowed to fail. I'm not blind to the short-term catastrophe that would have unleashed but I think that could have been managed. We'd be over the worst by now.

By bailing out the banks I have a feeling we've prolonged the agony and the catastrophe has not been averted, merely postponed.

Spindoc.

The despotic dictatorships are aided and abetted wherever possible by the "big bad West" - under the auspices of the IMF and the World Bank which in turn represents Western corporate interests.

One doesn't have to look too far to see the profits from structural reforms in Arab countries have been funnelled straight into the pockets of the ruling elite and also to foreign corporate interests.

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/31-2010/1083-arab-uprisings-show-the-impact-of-the-world-bank-and-the-imf

"John Pilger often gets short shrift from the conservative cohort of OLO (and beyond) who don't have a clue that they're they're the same (only lesser; even more credulous and to be pitied) kind of political eunuch as the professional minions Pilger paints here."

Happiness stakes

Conservatives - 1
Progressive hand wringers - 0

It's why we rule .. we don't have a clue, yep, no clue, which makes you losers what?

Pitied, no thanks, crank up the Plasma screen that I use now as a PC display, you have sit across the room though, and away we go!

You suck at capitalism, get over it and stop whining all the time. Go bother someone about carbon whatsits or something, please.

Steven

>> By bailing out the banks I have a feeling we've prolonged the agony and the catastrophe has not been averted, merely postponed. <<

"Instead of pumping $700 billion to $1.3 trillion (nobody knows the real number) into economic stimulus and bail-outs, the U.S. government could have simply paid everyone’s mortgage — EVERYONE’S — for six months.

There are 51 million mortgages in America and the average mortgage payment in 2006 was $1686, so paying everyone’s mortgage for six months would have cost $516 billion — hundreds of billions less than the Bush/Paulson/Obama/Geithner/Bernanke plan, and quicker, too.

The money that people would otherwise have used to make their mortgage payments could have gone in part for other things, making it effectively a huge economic stimulus in its own right. With mortgages paid in full there would have been no foreclosures OR bank failures during that six month period. Yes, there would still have been problems with the banking system that needed correction, but there would have been six months to do the correcting."

http://www.cringely.com/tag/wall-street/

Imagine if they bailed out mortgagees instead of banks....

And this:

"The bank bailouts of 2008 continue to bring the broad economy harm, all the while restraining the ability of the banking system to get back on its feet. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

To put it simply, while business failure of any kind is always painful for investors and employees alike, it’s a happy sign of economic revival for revealing in living color that capitalism is working. Business failure hardly constitutes business disappearance, and the beauty of failure is that it ensures that poorly managed assets are released at frequently low prices to managers with a stated objective to develop those human, mechanical and financial inputs more effectively on the way to growth.

To make basic what already is, failure signals an economy on the mend simply because the bad business ideas, investments and labor misuses are cleansed from the economy. Failure means that bad ideas won’t be perpetuated, that an ineffective status quo won’t be maintained, and that’s why Silicon Valley’s rather ruthless approach to failed concepts means that it thrives, while Michigan languishes for propping up concepts that rational investors and workers long ago left behind as yesterday’s news."

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-the-bank-bailouts-are-still-crippling-the-economy.html/

Ammonite,

Good point - seems the money was spent merely to prop up the system.

Nor should we overlook the billions that international governments pumped into the stock market to artificially stimulate faltering confidence when the markets first began to display volatility.

Curate's egg.

Pilger is spot on when describing the stultifying system that operates in the majority of large corporations, rewarding mediocrity at every step and placing conformance at the top of their performance evaluations.

Nowhere, by the way, is this more prevalent than in the Public Service "industry". Filled to the brim with yes-people, toe-the-liners and jobsworths, they are the biggest drain on productivity that the world has yet invented.

Big business and the Public Service have other traits in common: they set their own pay scales - which are answerable to no-one who is prepared to do anything about it - and both maintain the posture that it is the world that owes them a living.

A pox on the lot of them.

The essential Pilger disconnect is his grasp of finance. While the pay rates of senior bankers are obscene, he throws the institutions out with the bathwater. The Banks weren't "bailed out". Their clients were. If the GFC contagion had caused Banks to close their doors, the losers would not only be the Banks themselves, their rapacious executives and their fat-cat shareholders (which indirectly include pension-fund members), but their entire customer base.

Streets filled with people unable to buy food would have been a truly ugly sight. Who would Pilger find to blame then?

Poirot,

Don’t know if you’re in agreement with my observation or just trying to lay blame?

<< The despotic dictatorships are aided and abetted wherever possible by the "big bad West" - under the auspices of the IMF and the World Bank which in turn represents Western corporate interests.>>

Isn’t that what despotic dictatorships do? Are you saying that it is the fault of the west for offering or the despotic dictatorships for being despotic and accepting?

Spindoc,

"...the fact that it is despotic dictatorships that are actually responsible for the lack of social equity and justice and not the big bad "West".

I was pointing out that the West is embedded in many cases, like the rise of Yusef Boutros Ghali, from the Egyptian elite, who was educated in the U.S. and began his career with the IMF.
Having served his Western apprenticeship, he returns to Egypt to implement IMF strategy, not for the social equity of justice of the people at large, but to swell the coffers of his own elite and corporate interests abroad.

This is what the IMF and the World Bank do - ingratiate themselves with the ruling elite of countries, in order to profit corporate interests at the expense of the common man in "developing" societies.

Pericles, Ammonite, Poirot, and others.

Stable, sustainable banking depends on a BALANCE OF TERROR. Borrowers must fear the consequences of not being able to service their debt. Banks must fear the consequences of making too many dud loans.

Upset that balance by bailing out either borrowers or lenders or both and you will cause economic chaos.

Bail out bankers and they will continue lending with gay abandon, and pay themselves huge bonuses, because they know they will suffer no consequences if things go pear shaped.

Bail out borrowers and you, in effect, bail out bankers who will lend with gay abandon ....

You see where this goes.

But there is a deeper malaise in the USA and, to a lesser extent, in most Western countries. In the USA, while AVERAGE incomes have risen over the past decade, there has been an actual DECLINE in the real incomes of most households. Most American household are poorer than they were a decade ago.

How can this happen? How can most people get poorer while average incomes rise?

Because there has been a surge in inequality.

Today in the US the top 1% of earners get +- 24% of the “national payroll.” In the 1970s the top 1% got 10-12%. What should have been a decline in living standards for most Americans has been masked by easier access to credit. Americans have been borrowing more to maintain their lifestyles. This cannot continue indefinitely.

While the situation has not been as drastic in other Western democracies inequality has increased in most of them - with along with increases in consumer debt to finance all those nice goodies like giant TVs and iPhones.

Squeers…. “same (only lesser; even more credulous and to be pitied) kind of political eunuch.”

I see that description could be applied to you Squeers

“Neoliberal ideology”

Back in 1989 “Neoliberal ideology” crushed the socialist/collectivist demonology of USSR

Which is a good thing for all… and a lot better than having to suffer under the Squeers philosophy or oppression… much better he be allowed to cast verbal stones at the economic system which feeds him, rather than systematically starves him.

Of Pilger, he is just another who "libertarian capitalism" allows to bite the hand which feeds him…

And again so much better an outcome for all than the gulag of collectivism (by any name)

Poirot “One doesn't have to look too far to see the profits from structural reforms in Arab countries have been funnelled straight into the pockets of the ruling elite and also to foreign corporate interests.”

And your next conspiracy theory is - how wearing a string vest cause cancer?

Ammonite I see you are starting to educate yourself. To advance your knowledge…..

I would point out it was the US liberals (limpwristed leftie leaning theorists and academics and their political nominees, the Democracts) who supported bank bailouts and car bailout…. The Republicans resisted the payment of Money-for-Failures

I would note GM has been an economic basket case for a decade, partly because of its silly arrangement for medical and other benefits for retired workers, which was a like a lease balloon payment starting after the person retired and as such the black death to any businesses economic viability. Plus there was a cultural problem for GM when it came to building smaller cars.

I would also observe, Margaret Thatcher closed down stagnant nationalized industries in UK in 1980s for the same reason: that if a business cannot survive on its merits, it does not deserve to survive (all investors in windfarms please note), thus releasing resources for new business ventures

Poirot so that’s the new conspiracy “ingratiate themselves …expense of the common man in "developing" societies. “

You are better off blaming string vests

Everyone is starting to nail the big issues of the Central Banksters stuffing up our economies via debt enslavement.They are the ones also pushing for the imperial wars for oil in the Middle East and Central Asia.The war on terror is a lie.Energy is the real issue.They also want to contain China who have independant Govt Banks free from Western debt slavery.Japan had Govt banks free fom the West prior WW2 and their economy boomed.The West tried to restrict trade and energy of japan so they had to go to war.We are now doing the same to China.

We don't need central banksters!

Poirot, still not sure if we are agreeing or not but I think it’s a point worth pursuing.

I made the point and we seem to agree, that the western opportunists in political, economic and commercial domains will seek power and financial gain in such countries. Likewise their dictators will accept opportunities in political, economic and commercial domains to sustain their power and financial gain. So far so good.

The point I asked you to address was who do you seek to blame, the western opportunists or the dictator opportunists?

In the end the result is the same, loss of social equity and justice for those living under dictatorships. But even that is not the point I was making.

The point was that whilst all this is going on, regardless of who is to blame, the western media and the activists have provided a very handy distraction so that the “opportunists” of all persuasions have been able to get on with “business as usual”.

I accused John Pilger of being part of the problem on this basis, so where do you actually stand

You continue to amuse with your dramatics, Arjay.

Loved this:

>>They also want to contain China who have independant Govt Banks free from Western debt slavery.<<

So wrong, in every possible way. Hilarious.

"Contain China". For what purpose? Apart from the fact that the economic horse has so well and truly bolted that there isn't even anyone around to bolt the stable door after it, China is the engine of a great deal of the world economy. They need customers, and the world needs their investment. The laws of supply and demand do not get suspended, as economic power shifts across the globe - they are what creates the shift in the first place.

And what exactly are "independant Govt Banks", pray tell. Either they are independent, or they are government. And we know which they are in China, don't we. Do you expect them to be somehow more transparent than the Fed? More concerned about people? Tell us; how do you expect them to behave?

While you are about it, define "Western debt slavery". Where do you think most of the US overseas debt sits?

Great stuff, Arjay. Keep it coming.

Col Rouge wrote:

>>The Republicans resisted the payment of Money-for-Failures>>

However the bailouts took place during a REPUBLICAN administration.

See “Paulson was down on one knee, begging for a deal”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/paulson-was-down-on-one-knee-begging-for-a-deal-944046.html

>>Back in 1989 “Neoliberal ideology” crushed the socialist/collectivist demonology of USSR>>

It did. And I was glad.

However, as every evolutionary biologist would understand, this does not prove that “neoliberal ideology” is the pinnacle of society. It merely indicates that neoliberalism is better than communism.

The common example in biology is a zebra being chased by a leopard. To survive the zebra does not have to run faster than the predator; it merely has to run faster than the slowest zebra in the flock.

Now here’s the thing Col Rouge. Capitalist societies trump socialist ones because they can run faster. They adapt better. Joseph Schumpeter called the process whereby capitalist economies evolve “creative destruction.” The old is destroyed to make way for the new.

In other words, neoliberal capitalist societies should be perpetual works in progress always adapting, always changing, sometimes getting a bit worse but in general getting better.

Unfortunately, when the last REPUBLICAN administration bailed out the big banks it froze a dysfunctional banking culture in place. It prevented the emergence of newer, better, banking systems and cultures. In so doing it combined the worst aspects of socialism with the worst aspects of capitalism.

NB: I’m not giving the Democrats a free ride here. They had the majority in congress.

But when the crunch came the Republicans acted as I expected; THEY BAILED OUT THEIR CORPORATE BUDDIES.

In third world countries we have a name for this sort of behaviour. We call it “CRONY CAPITALISM”.

Spindoc,

Western corporate opportunists - or dictator opportunists - now let's see...go together like a horse and carriage.....

Globalisation is to blame in exacerbating the plight of ordinary Arabs/Indians/Africans, dominated as it is by Western corporate greed...okay, got that straight.

The world's media might give air and print space to activists, however, the juggernaut that is Western extravagance rolls along for the most part unhindered. Why is this the fault of the John Pilgers of this world?

stevenlmeyer

Another excellent post. Agree completely.

So what are we going to do? Capitalism being the least worst is not good enough, we can do better, we are more capable than such an inequitable system.

We need balance; unmonopolised competition, enough government regulation to support and encourage small and medium business. Finally, necessities which require massive infrastructure such as water, power, education, public transport, health, and related research and development require government support, the first 5 being completely responsible to government.

"Beyond the Triple Bottom Line: Creating Shared Value

March 1, 2011

“While society’s needs are large and growing, a new generation is asking business to step up.” Michael Porter, a distinct name in business and a thought leader in strategy and competitiveness, and Mark Kramer, managing director at FSG, offered the CSR world a different perspective on the value of the triple bottom line in their article, “The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value,” which was featured in the January/February 2011 issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR). Although the term isn’t new, Creating Shared Value (CSV) has been linked to “reinventing capitalism”.

In their 2006 HBR article, “Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility,” Kramer and Porter introduced CSV as the mutual dependence of corporations and society, implying that both business decisions and social policies must benefit both sides. The first step is to identify the points of intersection through mapping the social impact of the value chain. Companies are encouraged to address social issues which also create value and competitiveness for their business. By creating a corporate social agenda, companies can reinforce corporate strategy by advancing social conditions.

Kramer and Porter argue that current CSR agendas are often fragmented, reactive and lack measurement of social impact beyond the voice of corporate stakeholders. They say, “the most important thing a corporation can do for society, and for any community, is contribute to a prosperous economy,” while thinking in terms of “corporate social integration” over CSR."

http://brownflynn.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/beyond-the-triple-bottom-line-creating-shared-value/

john makes a good point
that seems to be missed by many
in the main becuse he didnt expand on the summation blurb

[john focused on the who...more than the how]

as john could have explained..
the how was began...as described in..
'the creature from jeckle island'...

where the bankers decided
to send the worlds federal reserves..[then controled by govt]...*broke
[this mostly was done by them bying up 'war/bonds'
and cashing then...ALL of them in...at the same time

[when govts couldnt pay off in gold/silver]
they declared govt bust...and seized the worlds treasuries
[from then on govts were broke...and actually under legal terms of bankruptcy]

bankers then took over education..with grants
[subverting education..then the media..then in time finance/law/agriculture/industry]

and by using selective lending...
for from that time..govts had to beg bankers..for money
[at rates set by the money-changers]..all designed after princioples

that saw the imf
doing much the same austerity measures
chosing who got the cash...and at what rate
and who would war upon who....

[lets not forget EVERY war needs finance]
by financing ione over the other..you can select which side wins
as well as..*how much of their war bonds you hold over them
for them to jump when YOU SAY jump

thus we got tax on wage's
lol called 'income tax'
[yet income isnt wage
its not wage tax..its income tax]

income is that earned by not adding value
wage is that earned..that ADDS value
[different...yet the LAWYERS...trained in the sellout schools
wernt taught any different...now comes the clever bit]

see your not a person
[a corperation is a legal person]..NOT YOU*

you created a 'person'..
when you PARENTS..
regesterd your birth

your not 'the' person..
your the trustee OVER your person
your..'person'..is your licence..or your bith certificate
[legally speaking]

se govt CAN regulate,[make laws]..for corperate'..person's
NOT FOR LIVING BEINGS*..

by you becomming a legal 'person'
you became a dead corperate fiction..
[thus fall..under govt order]..by trick

se licence is permission to do that.
.OTHERWISE..illegal..

*[for a 'person']

it all hooks on 'standing'
your either a living being..with rights]
or a legal..'person'..with permissions..[either free or slave]

but your too ignorant to want to know..the difference
you believe you are a person[dead fiction]
you think to pay IN-come/tax..on wages

you cant be free
till you realise you been conned

see persons..are legally 'wards'..of the state
[the 'state'..being yet another constituted/fiction
we got bought into...by 'electing...trustees..PRETENDING..to manage our affairs..

we are trustees...while those in the know
lord it over their trust...[they pretend authority
and we are allowed to chose..who hits us next

they pretend seervice
but its self service
run by left brain autiomotonas/ignorants
who run corperate machines
and dont right brain think

they sem to serve you
but are there to dumb you down
keep you thinking your a 'person'

but in reality they are only serving the collusive
corperate intrests..to tax you into poverty..steal your freedoms/land

by lies/spin..law
'dumbed down education SYSTYEMS..
and threat of force/jails...and of course
the TRAINED to be ignorant media...who dont do researches

but you dont either...huh..!
john is close sometimes

but
other times
drinks the coolaid

but then who dosnt..you play the game
or become like jfk

[after the money changers
didnt like him...issuing USA's own money
read pres order 11.110]

have a nice day

Poirot, OK, now that you have skillfully avoided the question of who is to blame by throwing the mantra of “globalization” over the problem. What aspects of globalization (horse and carriage) do you hold responsible for the problem?

As to what extent the John Pilgers of this world are at fault, I thought I had made it very clear. By providing the despotic dictatorships with a diversion, they have been able to get on with business as usual

one under god

You mean one for the mother, one for the father, one for the country and all under god?

Pericles again has a magnificant disconnect with reality.It was the likes of Rockerfeller, and JP Morgan who conned Pres Woodrow Wilson of the USA in 1913 to let their banks create all the new money needed for the growth and inflation of the US economy.Prior that,it was the US Govt that uttered currency.The US Constitution says that only Congress should have the power to create new money to equal increases in GDP.Woodrow Wilson was latter to lament his decision to enslave the US people in unnecessary debt.The following yr in 1914 the income tax act was introduced to tax the people,thus paying for the debt to private banksters.

We in Australia,used to have 4 state banks and the Commonwealth Bank, thus via the fractional reserve system of magical money creation they created some of our new money debt free,or as a tax credit.

When Keating sold off the rest of the Commonwealth Bank in 1995,they needed new taxes to pay for the debt to the private banksters.Thus Howard had to bring in the GST.The GST was to replace other taxes but our tax burden just increased.So now we have to sell off Govt assets to pay for debt to private banks.30% of our mortage money comes from OS Central Banks.We are borrowing OS to buy our own land.

It is called an Oligarchy Pericles,where the few powerful corporates corrupt our Govts and take control.Why do you think Julia Gillard made her first speech as PM from the Lowy Institute? Why do you think that Abbott has had two private meetings with Rupert Murdoch before and after becoming leader of the opposition? They are securing their investment and making sure their puppet fuctions well.

your closer than you might think skeptic
[except the govt creates its own 'person'
the so called citizen..the so called ima-grant
its GOVT that creates the persona called a driver

take driving for egsample
we must 'APPLY' for a licence
[apply means beg...we beg for an advantage
ie apply for the right to drive..]

but only fictions...need a licence[permission]
a freeman is an adult...adults dont need to beg
but with the nanny state...we begged to vote for..we must look closely at what is the true state of affairs

take voting..[for egsample]..
we applied[begged]..to be ALLOWED to vote
but in doing so declared a lie to be true...[the same with APPLYING[begging for a licence]

see how we need to declare our birthing certificate
NED to swear the info on the form..is true and correct
WE SWEAR our birth details to be true and correct...YET we dont know..it is correct..OF OUR OWN KNOWING*[legally its called hearsay]

we were only babes at the time
we GOT TOLD,..its true...BUT*

[we dont recall the time/date/location..
FROM our own memories]
yet SWEAR its true...

[thus gaining 'advantage'..
worse BEGGING for advantage]..
under law a begger is thought to KNOW..for what he begs

in applying we achieve a lower standing
an under/standing..standing under
the legislated rules we begged..[app-LIED]...to be under

with marrage licences its UNDER..the marrage act..
with transport its UNDER..the transport act

but look at what the words mean
transortation is the trans-port[..movement of goods/chattles]
usually for money..thus the need to fall under regulation..

thus to fall under the author-ity..
of the transportation[transport]..act..

see transport needs a vehicle
search the meaning of a vehicle

if a vehicle...this needs a driver[person]
if your not driving a commerce/vehicle...
you dont have a 'driver'

[ie your not doing it
for 'income']

its a con-voluted mish-mash
many lawyers know it...

but they also know
we did beg..[apply]..to be subject to
[under]..the various acts..govt AB-uses,..
to lord it over..their peons..[slaves]

[in fact the very 'act' of hiring a lawer..
LEGALLY lowers our standing..to that called an imbisile..

that by virtue of being brain/dead..
is needing his trustee to talk for
and on behalf of..his ward]...

ie this licence persona[NOT YOU]..
but he wont tell you this..cause then
he will never become a judge
nor a politition who makes laws..

ie they got too clever..for the corperation
to abuse their ignorance...and thus the person

think of it like...a slave...knowing he is only a slave
cause he is incompitant..enough to not know he is born free

[born abouve this dead fiction personum...
govt is abusing..cause we thing we are persons]

john is never going to ask a certain barister to explain it
and even if he did..the media wouldnt print it

[when the world is enslaved
a fool daring to talk of freedom
or even think of setting himself free
is easy to call nuts...and so the corperations do their vile

but it being dead..[fiction]...
[ie made real only be asosiation with a living entrity
allows hurtfull corperate lies...
[like fiat paper being money..
or computer digets being credit]..
or securitised promises..to steal true values

but these lies..musnt be allowed
to destroy the exploited...living beings..
under the fictions

[its a case of fiction destroying reality
or rather the dead...ruling it over the living

where by lie..
the corperate/persons gain our human rights
and we living get the dead obligation's and the austerity]

I'm beginning to understand the Arjay theory of life on earth.

Where Marxist ideology needed the concept of "permanent revolution" to disguise the fact that it hadn't a clue how to put its theories into practice, Arjay uses the concept of "permanent conspiracy" to explain the world to himself.

Thus, not a word about my deconstruction of his Sinology, instead a rehash of the last hundred years of slavery under the (apparently not quite so) new world order.

>>It was the likes of Rockerfeller, and JP Morgan who conned Pres Woodrow Wilson of the USA in 1913...It is called an Oligarchy Pericles,where the few powerful corporates corrupt our Govts and take control.<<

Clearly, you have never worked in a "powerful corporate" environment Arjay, or you would realize how powerless these entities are in real life. They rely on a legion of lobbyists, spruikers and PR flacks to bend the rest of the world to their will - the concept of secret high-level meetings in smoke-filled rooms is the product of fantasy.

As are all your conspiracy theories.

Every. Single. One.

Spindoc,

If you're looking for "business as usual" you could do no better than to read the following link to a lengthy article.
Regarding U.S./Western relations with the interim Egyptian government - more loans, more transparent blather about "democracy and freedom" - more of the same neoliberal reform that was experienced during Mubarak's reign.

The West is relentless in its pursuit of profit by any means, all premised on policies of privatisation, de-regulation and foreign investment. these are the policies that plundered ordinary Egyptians and led to the uprisings in the first place.

The "diversion", it seems, has more to do with erroneous and ingrained notions of Western benevolence attached to its dealings with developing economies.

Spindoc, you didn't make it clear. In your initial post you blamed the activists for their diversion while despotic regimes carried on with business as usual.

Read the article and you'll find that despots are probably a secondary feature of the problem. Western greed and seduction in the form of "largesse" is a primary driver of the misery and unrest currently taking place in the Arab world.

What came first - the neoliberal chicken or the despotic egg? - methinks it was the chicken.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25066

Pericles.You need to read Global Research like Poirot does or is that all conspiracy too? Do you really think that the USA is in Iraq and Libya to free their people? It is all about oil and getting their banking cartels owning their currency so they can create their GDP as debt.

Gee whiz Squeers , John Pilger is a border line psychiatric inmate with No ability to Reason with FACTS, To be sure that the item ; Pilchers , Use here , can well be used as a metaphor to describe the strength of Research and relevance of most of what he wishes to include in his servile scribbling laced with imposter terms. As we would well expect from, “The State Courtiers”.
If by now is it that you cannot understand the Fact of the very phenomena that you mentioned; Corporate Brainwashing, of course it is, because it is hand in hand with Political Brainwashing –or Educational brainwashing, just as every other form Brain washing;
There Be only One entity with total monopoly power to do that Squeers and with Absolution from responsibility; The Omnipotent State.
It takes very little effort to find out if anyone realy wanted to . And I will guarantee you that it is heavily entrenched in Centralised Government and Political Economies;and Fiat Inflation. Very Much in line with your philosophy
http://mises.org/media/3200/The-Cultural-and-Spiritual-Legacy-of-Fiat-Inflation

ALL,

thanks for link. I don't disagree with its main thrust; that fiat inflation is at the root of the problem of a degenerate culture.
Where I continue to find myself at odds with free market ideology is a) in its celebration of the "sainted entrepreneur", virtually a messianic figure whose "talents" are undermined by the welfare state. And b) that the whole ideology seems to me an exercise in conservative rationalisation.
Towards the end of your link it unabashedly favours a regressive Christian morality, including all the usual taboos--while I certainly support the taboo on incest, other aspects of repressed sexuality seem to me better normalised.
Most importantly, genuine free markets would lead to a neo-aristocracy rather than a fair system of equal opportunity.
I do agree that using fiat inflation to virtually enforce what amounts to an ever expanding pyramid scheme, seems assured to lead to our collective ruin, morally and practically. We can't go on expanding on abstract money and creative credit.
I'd be willing to consider free-marketism but for one non-negotiable imposition; a mandatory and universal wealth and assets cap, no exceptions.
So, get rid of fiat inflation (which forces us to live within our means) and indecent individual wealth. That way economies, welfare states and unsustainable populations would have to shrink to sustainable levels.
Of course we'd have to find another way to encourage horders to keep their money in circulation; zero inflation means money under the mattress. But there are ways to address any such problems, and in my view it's a nonsense that an economy can only be sustained via concentrations of wealth in "talented" quarters. In practice, worthless dynasties are formed, and more importantly--a point that most people seem so brainwashed as to be incapable of considering: THERE IS NO ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR A SOCIETY (INDEED GLOBALISED CULTURE) BASED ON DRASTIC INEQUALITIES. Nor, imo, is there any practical need for it; arguments to the contrary are feeble and self-serving. Capitalism is, finally, indefensible.

Neoliberalism is of course not capitalism in any pure sense, but a much more evolved form of "human farming".

Correction;
instead of <So, get rid of fiat inflation (which forces us to live within our means)> above, I meant to say <So, get rid of fiat inflation (which would force us to live within our means).

Not that I'm encouraging All or anyone to respond. I realise I'm whistling in the wind and would just as soon save my breath.

Squeers “Capitalism is, finally, indefensible.

Neoliberalism is of course not capitalism in any pure sense, but a much more evolved form of "human farming".”

Libertarian capitalism is a far superior method of economic organization than any of the others so far theorized about or tried

For instance your suggestion of “human farming” is something more akin to the practical application of collectivism, (by any name), a system of human and economic organization which is commonly seen asa the antithesis of capitalism.

In the name of “collectivism”, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all saw starvation as a legitimate tool of state control, something which is similar to ‘human farming” where the herd is culled as a deliberate policy of the all powerful state.

George Bernard Shaw, well known member of the socialist “Fabian Society” was a rabid advocate of Eugenics, the selection of people fit to breed or not. More collectivism which runs roughshod over individual rights, supposedly in the name of the collective but in fact in the name of a despicable, despotic state machine.

I recall Margaret Thatcher wisely wrote
“there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”

Individuals achieve all and they achieve most when government is of a libertarian capitalist nature and not its bastard antithesis, “collectivism” by whatever name you care to give it….
Marxism
Communism
Socialism

So many names for the same disease…which reminds me of something else Margaret said

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

Too right.. they fail yet are too stupid to learn form their failure and insist on imposing the same flawed economics again and again…. Example Greece, today… another socialist basket case
And something which cannot defend itself and is, thus, far less “defensible” that good old capitalism

Col,
I agree that capitalism is the best system "so far tried", and I don't defend the totalitarian states you mention--though it's tiresome the way these are routinely trotted out in the place of a defence of the failings of capitalism. If you cared to think about it--but of course you don't--neoliberalism "is" akin to human farming. Thatcher's precious individualism is pure fantasy, narcissism to the extent that denizens believe in it; Homo consumericus has all the autonomy of flightless meat chickens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism#Politics_and_society
Greece btw, apart from being the cradle of democracy, is a parlimentary republic, and it's capitalism that's the basket case.

But how can you create something from nothing , then infer it to the creator who then creates it ; That means it is a miracle ; which is Metaphysics ; now That sounds like classical political Ledgermain .
You presuppose that something exist where it does not .

You fall into the Hegelian trap of Dialectics Squeers, A person creates a pint of beer , it is not there because you wish it to be , an individual created it for someone’s consumption if not for his own consumption , thus trade; We may well call Capitalism Bartering , But how many beers can you barter for your products , and lets say you are a carpenter and trade two chairs for six pints of beer , obviously you can see the main point here , How many chairs does the beer producer need ? Obviously not sixty : Ok , unless he is opening the first public bar ;-), and how many beers can you drink before you are legless anyway.
Government at this point does not exist , so there is not any O H & S yet to give you a verbal and there is not money invented yet to rob it from you .

So the Metaphysical Zietgist , or The creator has not been created yet. yes , that sounds odd, But .Pre suppose .

That is still in production in the envy machine.
So now we need a currency that has a standard value so Individual can trade between each other in exchange for Value for value , be it Goods or Services , Thus Society ;
Now , there is something to rob , so Governments of any description moves in and commence their predation on the Individuals.
BUT;

Yes you guessed it; there is more;
Not only do they prey on the producers and society, they think they can organise it better so they can rob and plunder with even less effort; Thus Social Engineering;
And societies go down the shoot for another thousand years or so;
This world is littered with extinct civilizations, as far back as 9 thousand years ago. Give or take a few years of course.

I agree with the majority of comments made by stevenmeyer, Poirot, Squeers and Ammonite. Pilger is spot on.

The corporate boys club is a collective in itself with a deeply entrenched self-serving culture influenced by a narrow perspective of capitalism and delusions about 'contribution' to societies.

Greed is unchecked and continually 'sponsored' by governments who tweak feebly at the edges without making any real progress in addressing wage inequity. Looking out for number one is applauded, the collective ideal scorned except when it comes to government subsidies or bail outs.

There is some irony in the continual hand outs to corporations and agricultural sector which is not viewed in the same narrow prism of social welfare. The biggest dependents are the corporations who are continually propped up by taxpayers and through lack of appropriate government regulation. Pilger is right as far as brainwashing.

“there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”

Individual men and women make up a society. The collection of taxes to pay for universal health care in the event of any of us needing to depend on the system for a short while; or disability support in the event that a few of us may need it to survive. Or schools, or roads etc. Makes perfect sense and ensures a safety net for even the lowest income earners who often work in the hardest and most laborious jobs.

Imagine the decline in community wellbeing if all these aspects of society were managed under the umbrella of profit incentives. It is happening to some extent with the privatisation of essential services.

Some aspects of society should reasonably work for the benefit of the majority not small elite groups who wield the most power.

Slightly bewildered here Pelican, But Isn’t your words describing a Socialized Economy or Political economy?
The only thing for you to do now is substitute the word Corporate Cowboy for Buearocrat and you have reached the same point as what others and what I have said; That is not Private enterprise or Individual s trading nor is it business in society trading and exchanging amongst each other ;
Good Lord It is The State Corporation; Fascism remembers? Socialism of the right, or to put it in the political spectrum for its correct positioning;
Conservatism;
But not how it is that you defined it; Conservatism is back to the good old days of Monarchical and Oligarchic ruling class; Or the Elite Privileged; and later the ones that gave you Socialism to keep you confused ; and it worked.
Lucky it was not a king cobra snake chasing you, it was that obvious you nearly stood on it, and then it would have bitten you; and then what?
Heheh

The State formulates data based on Statistical information – This means there is a set formula to compile information in a set format to then calculate answers to questions that it asks ; So they already have the answers to their question;
Our question is based on the law of Large Numbers;
Now you get a different answer – something that is somewhat closer to the truth;
How many small and medium businesses go bankrupt each year? And its cause?

In Relation to Small and Medium Business; who is the largest Debt defaulter in Australia each year?
What owner of a contract agreement can have it rescinded , such agreement without compensation – Again in relation to Small and medium business?

I can write many other matters in relation to this subject , but the main point of this argument is based on factual information that is not released by State of Federal departments ; And it is very well much the same all over the world;

These businesses go belly up because of Governments, They do not have been granted Monopoly privilege or any other privilege granted by the state as the message has been portrayed here;
and even when the State is the causality of failure in all instances; you don’t hear about it.

The Monopoly privileged , Well as Kevin Rudd said to the banks enquiring about perspective Losses during the Fiat inflation collapse of the world finances ; The Government will cover the debts::: Remember? , Did you or John or Squeers or anyone actually ask how? ,
Yes Fiat Inflation – Print more money