On the eve of this presidential election, my main worry is that it’s never going to be over. No matter who wins, we’re going to have to hear endless complaints, demands of a recount, accusations of fraud, claims of how Hurricane Sandy distorted the results, etc., etc.
Considering how little is likely to change regardless of who wins, it’s an incredible amount of energy expended on a high profile, absurdly expensive public spectacle. I know it’s considered practically blasphemous to say this, but I just don’t care very much who wins. I just hope it’s settled without excessive whining, controversy and fanfare so we can move on.
To qualify the above comments, I’m not quite as cynical as I may sound. I think real, even radical change is very possible in the near future. I just don’t see it coming through the old guard political system.
It has been widely reported that Mitt Romney won the first debate against President Barack Obama on October 3. First of all, I should confess that I did not watch the debate. I’ve watched enough presidential debates in my life to know that they are several hours worth of meaningless rhetoric, half-truths and glib one-liners.
However, I would still like to offer my hypothesis of why Romney, so well known for his public gaffs and overall unlikability should have made such a favorable impression compared to the president. To follow my argument, it helps to be at least a little conspiracy-minded.
It is a well known tenet of many conspiracy theorists that TPTB (The Powers That Be) commonly make use of a propaganda tool called the Hegelian Dialectic. When the philosopher Hegel first conceived of this, he was probably just philosophizing but the fact is that political leaders and others in power have used this method to divert and control people.
Essentially, this simply means diverting people by creating false divisions. Arguably, the whole Communist vs. Capitalist conflict of the latter 20th Century was an example of this. When you consider that the Soviet Union was largely funded by American and European capitalists, you can see how this is very possible.
Today, on the global level, we have another dialectic: The West vs. Islam. This is not the first time in history that this has occurred. But it’s been revived in recent years, in no small measure by American intelligence agencies and governments funding groups such as the Taliban and leaders like Osama Bin Laden.
On the domestic front, there is another dialectic: left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative or Democrat vs. Republican. While this is always going on, it’s especially apparent and vocal during presidential elections.
So what does this have to do with Mitt Romney supposedly winning the debate? Only that, to maintain its effectiveness, the dialectic must appear to be balanced. That is, both sides must appear to be of equal strength. Otherwise, it loses its power and meaningfulness. For example, if the communist or Islamic threat were seen as very weak, it would no longer be effective as a propaganda tool.
Similarly, during elections, if one candidate appears to have the race won, the whole election becomes trivialized. Up until the debate, it was repeatedly said that Romney was trailing Obama in the polls and needed to win this debate. So he did.
According to many people who reported on the debate, Obama appeared distracted and did not give his best performance. Was this an accident, or was this part of the plan? You will have to decide that for yourself.
But keep in mind that if Obama had clearly won the debate, he would have essentially secured the election. So, my hypothesis is that TPTB want to keep things looking as even as possible until the very end.
Even then, the results will no doubt be controversial, one way or another. Why? To keep people focused on the dialectic rather than on the real agenda, which gets played out no matter who wins.
When it comes to the internet, there are all kinds of issues regarding personal freedom. At the most basic level, there is freedom of speech. While it would appear that this isn’t an issue, various legislation that is in the works may threaten it, and each government may try to impose its own restrictions.
It should be noted that freedom doesn’t mean that particular website owners can’t restrict what is written on their own site. For example, a particular blog or forum can “censor” a post the owner doesn’t agree with. This is completely different from government imposed censorship.
Another topic related to personal liberty that often comes up in regard to the internet is gambling. Why shouldn’t people be allows to gamble if they choose? There are a multitude of sites that offer various games of chance -poker is especially popular -for example Partypoker Belgium.
Gambling is an example of what libertarians call a victimless crime, meaning of course that it isn’t really a crime at all. We can also be sure that governments such as that of the U.S. don’t really have a moral objection to gambling, or they wouldn’t allow state lotteries.
The internet is still one of the last bastions of freedom in the world. We can only hope it remains that way, and do all we can to oppose efforts to restrict or censor it.
Only a few weeks ago, I posted a blog entry about the need for a new coalition. This was in reference to the internet censorship bill that’s currently threatening us. however, it certainly has far broader implications.
Now, here’s a YouTube video about a meeting between Tea Party and OWS members. This isn’t much in itself, but it could be the beginning of something important. As the commentary states, the system tries to keep people separated by ideology, mainly on trivial issues.
Perhaps not all of the issues are trivial -many are rooted in culture, subculture, religion and other such areas. However, that doesn’t mean that the two groups cannot find important common ground. The fact is, if radical elements of the left and right, along with libertarian and greens, could put aside some of their differences, a truly momentous movement could emerge.
The video below was uploaded by someone named Ron, whose YouTube channel I recently discovered. I recommend checking out many of his videos if you’re interested in keeping up with the current changes and the emerging new paradigm.
The topic is a statement released in the U.K. about “Lawful Rebellion” and how people are starting to rebel against the conventional laws, banking system and other institutions. This is not merely another tirade against the New World Order (though that is mentioned), but actually brings up an important subject having to do with Common Law. While this document refers to the government of England, it’s universally relevant.
This subject is fundamentally relevant to the economic and political situation of the world today. If we recognize that our freedom and sovereignty is grounded in common law, we realize that we’re not obligated to follow laws that are in violation of these principles. The Founding Fathers of the United States, despite their serious shortcomings and contradictions (e.g. slavery, the treatment of Native Americans) intended to found the nation on principles of individual sovereignty, which, as the document on lawful rebellion describes, goes back many centuries in Great Britain.
This is, incidentally, also related to something called the Informed Jury Movement, which points out that when you serve on a jury you have a right, we might even say an obligation, to consider the validity of the law itself, not only the particular case in question.
The fact that we are seeing political unrest in so many places right now suggests that we may be on the verge of a worldwide movement grounded in a true recognition of our inalienable rights.
This video is from the Larry King show, where Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman and presidential candidate debates neo-con actor Stephen Baldwin on the issue of legalizing marijuana.
It’s hard to think of an issue that more blatantly exposes the failure and absurdity of the war on drugs. As Ron Paul points out, the war on drugs is similar to the prohibition on alcohol, which resulted in organized crime controlling that industry.
Marijuana would be very inexpensive without the laws against it, so the only people who profit from prohibition are drug dealers and the prison industry.
To me, the idea of making something that grows in nature illegal is inherently ridiculous, and reveals the basically artificial and arbitrary nature of governments and laws in general.
Does Obama really represent a radical break from the past? Only time will tell, but so far certain things are not very different. I find it interesting how the news keeps reporting about missile strikes in Pakistan almost as if they were a natural phenomenon, like the weather, independent of Obama or the U.S. government.
Another thing to remember is that “Obama’s” idea to take troops out of Iraq and put more in Afghanistan was already the direction that Bush was moving in. If the status quo is a variation on the Orwellian plan of permanent warfare that is always shifting – “Now we are at war with Oceania” -so far Obama hasn’t done much to change this.