In an act of tremendous courage and commitment to “government by the people,” Edward Snowden has revealed the abusive power that is being wielded by the United States government, in particular through the National Security Agency (NSA), at which he was employed.
Here below is a video interview of Snowden by Guardian (UK) columnist Glenn Greenwald, in which Snowden explains his actions.
And here blow is a CNN interview of Greenwald in which he explains what the NSA and the tech companies have said about the PRISM program of collecting personal communications of ordinary American citizens.
In my latest book, The End of Money and the Future of Civilization, I included a chapter titled, The Contest for Rulership—Two Opposing Philosophies, in which I attempted to outline the inevitable conflict that will decide what kind of world we will live in. Here is the first part of that chapter:
Chapter 3. The Contest for rulership—Two Opposing Philosophies
There appears to be a general tendency for those who get a little power to try to acquire more of it—and like an addictive drug, power’s ability to satisfy seems to depend upon its use in ever-larger doses. Lest the following be misunderstood, let me say at the start that I believe the same tendencies exist in every one of us, and that our efforts to improve our collective lot should not be cast as an “us versus them” contest. When I speak of ruling “elites” it is not to cast them as “evil” in opposition to the “virtuous masses,” but to explain the distortions in human affairs that have developed over time and to suggest what may be needed to give civilization a chance of evolving toward higher levels of achievement and a more harmonious condition.
Elitist or Egalitarian?
In 1944, F. A. Hayek warned that the western democracies were on the same “road to serfdom” that had been followed by fascist Germany and Italy (and communist Russia) during the early twentieth century.
He characterized the political contest as being between socialism on the one hand, and capitalism on the other—equating the former with “collectivism” and the latter with “individualism.” Hayek’s dichotomy is, I think, an overly simplistic characterization, and the fundamental struggle goes beyond particular political ideologies or economic systems however one might wish to define them. In my view there is a contest raging in the world that is more fundamental and less apparent than Hayek’s. It is one that impinges directly upon our freedom, our dignity, and our morality. It is a struggle between what might be called elitism on the one hand, and egalitarianism on the other. By elitism I mean the centralized rulership exercised by a small privileged class, while egalitarianism implies the dispersal of power and popular self-government. As Lord Acton keenly observed, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Whether that power be wielded through political office or economic dominance makes little difference; the outcome is the same. It is easy for those who live far above the masses to delude themselves into thinking that power and privilege are their “right,” and that whatever serves the narrow self-interest of their class, or race, or religious group also serves the general interest.
Hayek was sensitive to the defects of communism, but he seems to have been blind to the defects inherent in capitalism that make it equally susceptible to becoming totalitarian and tyrannical. The defining feature of totalitarian systems is the centralization of power and control, whether it be economic, political, or social, for these three are but facets of one whole. Considering the millennia of institutionalized hierarchy in our societies, Laurence Victor goes so far as to say,
I believe that [bureaucracies] are strong attractors for human psychopaths. In fighting their way to the top, individuals are selected who have the greatest tolerance for collateral damage of their actions. Today, the top [levels] of most power echelon hierarchies are populated by psychopaths. . . . The greater the power, the greater the collateral damage required and the greater the deception—both to others done damage [to] and those who are indoctrinated to damage others.[There are] two alternative modes for coordinating activity so as to accomplish what only many hands in coordinated activity could accomplish. The egalitarian mode involves voluntary cooperation to achieve requisite coordination. An exemplar might be a tribe’s collective effort in gathering materials and constructing a long house. The egalitarian mode can have leaders or managers, as roles to assist in coordination. Ideally, each person contributes as to their existing competencies and interests—and all essential roles are covered. The elitist mode involves forced labor in a top down command structure to achieve coordination (and even to get persons to act as demanded). The force could be facilitated by slavery or wages, both essential for survival in the prevailing situation. Once a people settle into an elitist mode, it must be defended by force and the indoctrination of labor to accept their status.
For that reason, any excuse for concentrating power and curtailing the personal rights and freedoms to which all are entitled, even national defense or a “war on terror,” must be viewed with suspicion—for as H. L. Mencken observed more than seventy years ago, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” The real hobgoblins, often created by government itself, can be effectively addressed only by a responsible citizenry acting together from its community base.
Law, by itself, is incapable of restraining the behavior of the addict, for addiction creates imperatives that are stronger than the inhibitions induced by law. But, beyond that, power addicts’ need for ever more power leads them to seek ways to control the very process by which laws are made, changed, and adjudicated. While the separation of governmental powers into executive, legislative, and judiciary functions was intended to offer some assurance of pluralism and impartiality, the ever-widening socioeconomic differences have the effect of drawing these functions together into the hands of power elites whose members possess shared interests that are typically antagonistic to those of the masses who comprise the rest of society. As legal constraints upon concentrated power are gradually nullified, government becomes a weapon against freedom, and the ruling class tightens its grip. The people must be ever watchful for the telltale signs of creeping totalitarianism—government secrecy, stonewalling, obfuscation, classified information, abuse of prisoners, surveillance of citizens, harassment of dissenters, appeals to national security and executive privilege, and covert interventions in the affairs of other countries. These signs have been plainly evident in America for some time, and the trend toward totalitarian government has been ramped up since the events of September 11. This is clearly shown in Naomi Wolf ’s book The End of America, which outlines ten steps common to all transitions from democratic to totalitarian rule, and shows how they are already manifest today in the United States. Chalmers Johnson, in his Blowback trilogy, has clearly described how America’s imperial overreach has all but destroyed our republican form of government.
It is said that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance,” but it cannot end there—vigilance is but the beginning of freedom. The acquisition and preservation of freedom require, in addition, responsible civic action. An informed, organized, and politically active citizenry is the only kind that has any chance of remaining free. {end of excerpt}
So long as we put material things foremost, and so long as we remain dependent upon their system of money and their banks, they will continue to control and dominate us. But we have it within our power to declare our economic independence, share the resources we have at our disposal, and apply our skills and talents to serving the common good.
My expectation is that increasing numbers of “cracks” (like Snowden’s revelation) within the despotic systems of control will lead the top level rulers to prematurely attempt to spring the trap on democratic government. This departure from “gradualism” will provide enough contrast to enable people to see what is being done to them, and to recognize that their fundamental common interests are at stake. Hopefully, we the people will assert our collective will in coordinated peaceful action that will turn the tide toward popular control and a world that works for everyone.–t.h.g.
What will it take to bring about a civilization that is peaceful, equitable and happy? This is a key question that I have been contemplating for the almost four decades during which I’ve come to realize the fundamental changes that are required in order for a convivial civilization to emerge.
In my most recent book, The End of Money and the Future of Civilization, I drew upon Prof. Philip Zimbardo’s work on human behavior and the lessons learned from his famous Stanford Prison Experiment. Just recently I happened to hear on the TED Radio Hour on NPR, a fascinating program that explored, The Violence Within Us. Besides Philip Zimbardo, talking about “Why Do Good People Do Bad Things?”, the program featured three other related segments as follows:
Jim Fallon: What Does The Mind Of A Killer Look Like?
Leslie Morgan Steiner: Why Don’t Domestic Violence Victims Leave?
Steven Pinker: Is The World A Less Violent Place?
These segments, each dealing with a different question relating to violence comprise one of the most thought-provoking programs I’ve heard in a very long time. I think we can learn a great deal by contemplating the facts and ideas presented. Please visit the program page and have a listen.
The graphics below capture the essential nature of western civilization today–everything is for sale, the main source of revenue for businesses and governments is advertising, everyone is trying to colonize your mind.
Greg Palast is a well-respected investigative journalist, one of the few media people who for me retains some credibility. In his recent article,Hugo Chavez and the Global Poverty Conspiracy, he tells the story of why he was so reviled by the U. S. and why an attempt was made to assassinate him. If you want to understand current geopolitics, you must read this article.
Everybody warned this would be no ordinary invitation, and they were right. Three hundred metres from Knightsbridge underground station, just a stone’s throw from fashion-conscious Harrods, I suddenly encounter a wall of police. I try to remember my instructions. Look straight ahead. Avoid eye contact. If asked my name, reply with a question. Ask who authorised them to ask. Climb the stone steps. Act purposefully. Appear to know exactly where you’re heading. I don’t.
Through a set of double doors, I’m confronted by more police officers, this time armed, with meaner faces. “Good afternoon”, I say politely, as I edge towards the receptionist. “I’ve an appointment at the Ecuador embassy. Am I at the correct address?” “Ring the brass bell”, grunts the bored-looking man squatting at his desk. A few minutes later, after some confusion about whether or not my name’s on the appointments list, I’m ushered inside. I’m greeted by the personal assistant of the most wanted man in the world. “Julian is taking a call,” says the well-spoken and debonair young man in black-rimmed glasses. “I’m terribly sorry. Please do have a seat. Would you like some tea, or coffee, or polonium, perhaps?” There’s a smile, but it’s pretty faint. I know I’ve reached my destination: a prison with wit and purpose.
The deadpan irony sets the tone of the lunch and dinner to come. The silver-haired “high-tech terrorist” (Joe Biden’s description) appears quietly, dressed in crumpled slacks, a V-necked pullover, socks. He’s relaxed, and welcoming. The quarters are cramped. We shuffle down a corridor into his office, where we occupy a desk covered in laptops and cables and scraps of paper. It’s black coffee for him and tea for me. I offer gifts that I’m told he’ll like. Popular delicacies from down under: a couple of honeycomb Violet Crumbles, chocolate biscuit Tim Tams, a bottle of Dead Arm shiraz from my native South Australia. I know he likes to read. Lying on his desk is a biography of Martin Luther, the man who harnessed the printing press to split the Church. To add to his collection, I hand my pale-skinned host a small book I’ve mockingly wrapped in black tissue paper with red ribbon, tied in a bow. The noir et rouge and dead arm pranks aren’t lost on him. Nor is the significance of the book: José Saramago’s The Tale of the Unknown Island. Inside its front cover, I’ve scribbled a few words: ‘For Julian Assange, who knows about journeys because there aren’t alternatives.’
I’d been told he might be heavy weather. Fame is a terrible burden, and understandably the famous must find ways of dealing with sycophants, detractors and intruders. People said he’d circle at first, avoid questions, proffer shyness, or perhaps even radiate bored arrogance. It isn’t at all like that. Calm, witty, clear-headed throughout, he’s in a talkative mood. But there’s no small talk.
I tackle the obvious by asking him about life inside his embassy prison. “The issue is not airlessness and lack of sunshine. If anything gets to me it’s the visual monotony of it all.” He explains how we human beings have need of motion, and that our sensory apparatus, when properly “calibrated”, imparts mental and bodily feelings of being in our own self-filmed movie. Physical confinement is sensory deprivation. Sameness drags prisoners down. I tell how the Czech champion of living the truth Václav Havel, when serving a 40-month prison spell, used to find respite from monotony by doing such things as smoking a cigarette in front of a mirror. “Bradley Manning did something similar,” says Assange. “The prison authorities claimed his repeated staring in the mirror was the mark of a disturbed and dangerous character. Despite his protestations that there was nothing else to do, he was put into solitary confinement, caged, naked and stripped of his glasses.”
US serviceman Bradley Manning faces decades in prison after allegedly leaking classified documents to Wikileaks. EPA/BradleyManning.Org
Life in the Ecuador embassy is nothing like this. It’s a civilised cell. After eight months, Assange tells me, the embassy staff remain unswervingly supportive, friendly and professionally helpful. They get what’s at stake. When delivering messages, they knock politely on his office door, as they did more than a few times during our time together. Yet despite feeling safe, Assange feels the pinch of confinement. He says the “de-calibration” (he uses a term borrowed from physics) that comes with “spatial confinement” is a curse. That’s why he listens to classical music, especially Rachmaninov. He has boxing lessons (gloves are on his study shelf) and works out several times a week (“just to get the room moving around”) with a wiry ex-SAS whistleblower. The need for variety is why he welcomes visitors and why, judging from the long and animated conversation to come, he’s desperately passionate about ideas.
Assange begins to enjoy the moment. Nibbling a chocolate biscuit and sipping coffee, he springs a surprise. “Truth is I love a good fight. Many people are counting on me to be strong. I want my freedom, of course, but confinement gives me time to think. I’m focussed and purposeful.” It sounds implausible. Entrapment wounds; it’s painful. Psychic defences are needed to ward off the unbearable. But striking is his utter defiance. “Never, ever become someone’s victim is a golden rule,” he says. In graphic detail, he then sketches his ten days in solitary confinement, in the basement of Wandsworth Prison, in south-west London, in late 2010. “I had expected to be completely out of my depth. But I felt no fear. I was tremendously enthusiastic about the challenge to come. I learned to adapt on my feet.” He means what he says.
I’m keen to talk about courage and its political significance. We do so for well over an hour. Lunch arrives: soup and a vegetable wrap from the local Marks and Spencer. His boxing mate appears. Assange says “it will be a while” and politely asks him to wait in the adjoining room. I remind Assange that he’s holed up in the right-wing Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, home to one of the safest Tory seats in Britain. So, just for fun, I play devil’s advocate by repeating the well-known remark of Winston Churchill that success is never final, failure is never fatal, and that what really counts in life is courage, the ability of people to carry on, despite everything. Assange lights up. “That’s undoubtedly true.” He’s never written or spoken at length about courage, but our time together convinces me he’s thought deeply and in sophisticated ways about the subject. He’s been forced to.
We discuss the detention without trial and torture of Bradley Manning. Assange mentions how the authorities are “picking off people all around me” (he’s referring to the ongoing FBI investigation and arrests of WikiLeaks activists). There’s no maudlin wobble. He understands the traps of “obsessive self-preoccupation” and speaks of the vital importance of cultivating a strong personal sense of “higher duty” to carry on. Courage is for him something that’s more important than fear because it involves putting fear in its place. I quote Aristotle at him: courage is the primary virtue because it makes all other virtues possible. “Yes, and that’s what’s worrying about present-day trends. We’re losing our civic courage.”
So where does courage come from, I ask? What are its taproots? Some people evidently draw breath from spiritual or religious sources, I say. He frowns. “My case is quite different. It’s hardship that makes or breaks us. True courage is when you manage to hold things together, even though most people expect you to fall to pieces.” The words ooze resilience. They could easily be his personal anthem, the proverb engraved on his Knightsbridge prison walls. He goes on to explain that although courage may or may not be a quality within human genes, a good measure of it is always learned. Courage is cultivated. It’s infectious. “Women on average have more of it than men,” he says. We discuss examples: on our list are Raging Grannies, Pussy Riot and the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp. “These women show men what courage is. Treated as outsiders, women have learned the hard way how to deal with structural power. They’re consequently much more adaptable than men. The world of men is structured force.”
The phrase catches me by surprise, but it captures in the most concise way exactly what the prisoner sitting across the table has done, in style, with great courage: he’s confronted structured force head-on. Julian Assange could be described as the Tom Paine of the early 21st century. Drawing strength from distress, disgusted by the hypocrisy of governments, willing to take on the mighty, he’s reminded the world of a universal political truth: arbitrary power thrives on secrets. We run through how WikiLeaks perfected the art of publicly challenging secretive state power. This “intelligence agency of the people” (as Assange calls his organisation) did more than harness to the full the defining features of the unfinished communications revolution of our time: the easy-access multi-media integration and low-cost copying of information that is then instantly whizzed around the world through digital networks. WikiLeaks did something much gutsier. It took on the mightiest power on earth. It managed to master the clever arts of “cryptographic anonymity”, military-grade encryption designed to protect both its sources and itself as a global publisher. For the first time, on a global scale, WikiLeaks created a custom-made mailbox that enabled disgruntled muckrakers within any organisation to deposit and store classified data in a camouflaged cloud of servers. Assange and his supporters then pushed that bullet-proofed information (video footage of an American helicopter gunship crew cursing and firing on unarmed civilians and journalists, for instance) into public circulation, as an act of radical transparency and “truth”.
We’re at the several hours mark, but everybody around me remains gracious. Nobody looks at watches; in fact, there’s not a clock to be seen. The debonair assistant pops in and out of the office, sometimes squatting at our table, tapping out messages on his laptop, fielding phone calls, several times handing his mobile to Assange. “It’s the latest crisis,” he whispers during the first of them. “We handle on average at least four or five a day.” He looks undaunted. This one’s just to do with the FBI investigation.
Julian Assange says “visual monotony” is the most troubling part of his confinement in the Ecuador embassy in London. EPA/Karel Prinsloo
When Assange comes off the phone, I change topics. I ask him about his pre-Christmas speech from the embassy balcony, when he predicted that in the next Australian federal parliament an “elected senator” would replace an “unelected senator” (he was referring to Foreign Minister Bob Carr, appointed through the casual vacancy rule). Now that the federal election date (September 14th) has been announced, is he still seriously intending to stand as a candidate?
Our conversation grows intense. For several years, Assange has been serious about entering formal politics. A new WikiLeaks Party is soon to be launched. He’s sure it will easily attract the minimum of 500 paid-up members required by law. The composition of its 10-member national council is decided. There’s already a draft election manifesto. The party will field candidates for the Senate, probably in several states. And, yes, Assange is certain to be among them, probably as a candidate in Victoria, where (conveniently) three Labor senators face re-election.
Assange bounces through the probable scenarios. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa will be re-elected, for another four years. He’ll stand firm in his personal and political support for Assange. This will ramp up pressure on the Swedish authorities, whose case against him is “falling apart”, with the two women plaintiffs looking for a way to extricate themselves from the protracted messy drama. “The Swedish government should drop the case. But that requires them to make their own thorough investigation of how and why their system failed.” The man’s not for turning. He’s certainly no intention of apologising for things he hasn’t said, or done. If he wins a seat in the Senate, he says, the US Department of Justice won’t want to spark an international diplomatic row. The planet’s biggest military empire will back down. It will drop its grand jury espionage investigation. The Cameron government will follow suit, says Assange, otherwise “the political costs of the current standoff will be higher still”. So the obvious question: what are the chances of that happening? Can bytes and ballots trump bullets? Can dare claim victory in his personal battle for political freedom?
What he has in mind has never before been attempted in Australian federal politics. Eugene Debs ran for the US presidency from prison (in 1920). Sinn Fein MP Bobby Sands was elected to Westminster while on hunger strike (in 1981). Under house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi won a general election (in 1990). In defiance of Israeli occupation and prison confinement, Wael Husseini was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council (in 2006). There are plenty of similar examples, so why shouldn’t Julian Assange attempt to do the same, and in style?
By now the boxing mate, kept waiting several hours, has gone home. The young assistant has left for another appointment outside the embassy. Dinner is nowhere in sight. We reach for chocolate biscuits and spend the last hour drilling down into the barriers Assange might well face. We start with nagging questions about his eligibility to stand. He’s characteristically upbeat. The technical objections (raised by Graeme Orr and others) aren’t real, he says. He’s no traitor to his country, and most definitely not under the “acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power” (section 44 of the Australian constitution). Truth is he was let down by a gutless Gillard government and forced into political asylum, under threat of extradition. “I’m safe here inside the embassy walls,” he mocks, “protected by more than a dozen police, including one stationed night and day right outside my bathroom window.”
From the Ecuador embassy to the staid chambers of the Australian Senate – Julian Assange’s journey will be packed with surprises. Australian Senate/Wikimedia
The man of courage clearly relishes the thought of being the first Australian senator catapulted from prison into a debating chamber. I crack a bad joke, telling him that he’d better hurry up, reminding him that the Commonwealth Electoral Act stipulates that people who’ve been sentenced for more than 3 years in prison don’t have the right to vote in federal elections while they’re serving their sentence. His eyes twinkle, before laying into those who insist that the federal electoral laws are against him, that he’s ineligible because candidates must already be registered to vote. “That’s untrue,” he notes. “The Act specifies only that candidates must in principle be qualified to become a voter.” Assange is right, but since he’s not currently on the electoral roll much turns on whether his preferred strategy of registering as an overseas voter will work. Courtesy of legislation pushed through by John Howard, I know from bitter experience, having once lived abroad for more than three years, what it means to lose the right to vote. Assange says his case is different. He’s been overseas for less than three years (he was last in Australia in June 2010) and intends to return home within six years – that’s why he’s just applied to be on the electoral roll in Victoria.
That leaves two final snags. If victorious, some advisors speculate, Assange might need to take oath before the Governor-General. For this to happen he’d have to be set free, naturally, but it could also be done, “for the first time ever, by video link”. Whatever the situation, continued confinement, he says, would breach the rule that he must take up his Senate seat within two months. “In that case, the Senate could vote to evict me. But that would trigger a big political row. Australians probably wouldn’t swallow it. They’ve learned a lesson from the controversial dismissal of Gough Whitlam.”
I’m curious about the kind of political party WikiLeaks will launch. “The party will combine a small, centralised leadership with maximum grass roots involvement and support. By relying on decentralised Wikipedia-style, user-generated structures, it will do without apparatchiks. The party will be incorruptible and ideologically united.” I flinch at his mention of ideological unity. He explains that the party will display iron self-discipline in its support for maximum “inclusiveness”. It will be bound together by unswerving commitment to the core principles of civic courage nourished by “understanding” and “truthfulness” and the “free flow of information”. It will practise in politics what WikiLeaks has done in the field of information. It will be digital, and stay digital. Those who don’t accept its transparency principles will be told to “rack off”. That’s the ideological unity bit.
Assange agrees the WikiLeaks Party must address and respond creatively to the creeping local disaffection with mainstream politicians, parties and parliaments. “I loathe the reactiveness of the Left,” and that’s why, he says, much can be learned from clever new initiatives in other countries. We discuss Beppe Grillo’s 5 Star movement (it could well win up to 15% of the popular vote in Italy’s forthcoming general election). On our list is the Pirate Party in Germany (it practises “liquid democracy” and has representatives in four state parliaments). So is Iceland’s Best Party. It won enough votes to co-run the Reykjavik City Council, partly on the promise that it would not honour any of its promises, that since all other political parties are secretly corrupt it would be openly corrupt. Assange lets out a laugh. “Parties should be fun. They should put the word party back into politics.” The WikiLeaks Party will try to do this, and to learn from initiatives in other democracies. Supported by networks of “friends of WikiLeaks”, it will be seen as “work in progress” designed “to outflank its opponents”.
He and his party supporters are bound to attract hordes of detractors. Tom Paine was cursed by foes; he even suffered the dishonour of being called a “filthy little atheist” by Theodore Roosevelt. Assange is similarly facing an army of spiteful enemies. In Britain and the United States, there are signs they’re now closing in on him with new arguments. He used to be denounced as a “cat torturer”, a “terrorist” and “enemy combatant” and accused of committing “an illegal act” (Julia Gillard). He was attacked as both an “anti-Semite” and a “Mossad agent”. There were murderous calls to “illegally shoot the son of a bitch” (Bob Beckel). These days the language is milder but no less vicious. He’s said to be ‘paranoid’, all ‘alone’ in his gilded prison, abandoned by his supporters, at the British taxpayers’ expense. He and WikiLeaks are guilty of the same “obfuscation and misinformation” (Jemima Khan) they claim to expose. Swedish media and politics are meanwhile crammed with crass epithets: “rapist”, “repugnant swine”, low-life “coward”, “Australian pig” and “pitiful wretch” hooked on sex-without-a-condom.
Auguste Millière’s portrait (1880) of the great English champion of liberty of the press Tom Paine. Auguste Millière/Wikimedia
I can’t tell from our time together whether any of this stuff hurts. It’s clear he’s aware that going into parliamentary politics will involve permanent fire-fighting, but unflappable he sounds. “I’ve had to deal with the FBI, the British press and more than a few rank functionaries. The Australian press are decent by comparison. No doubt the Australian Tax Office will show an interest in our campaign. Old enemies may make an appearance.”
Assange knows that in the age of surveillance and media saturation little remains of the private sphere. I put to him a prediction: the way he dodged questions about the Swedish allegations during a recent video-link appearance before the Oxford Union (“I have answered these questions extensively in the past”) isn’t sustainable, that avoiding the subject when running for the Senate will be blood to the hounds of the press pack. He asks what he should do. I put to him a positive alternative, which is to come clean on his alleged misogyny. “I’m not interested in softening my image by planting attractive women around me, as for instance George W. Bush did. I like women. They’re on balance braver than men, and I’ve worked with many in exposing projects that damage women’s lives. An example is the scandalous practice of UN peacekeepers trading food for sex that we exposed. Our WikiLeaks Party will attract the support of many women.” But what about the charge of misogyny, I ask? Isn’t Julia Gillard’s use of the word to attack the Leader of the Opposition worth widening? The reply is very Julian Assange: “Let’s just say I prefer miso to misogyny.”
There are moments when Assange seems much too serious, nerdish even, yet one thing’s very clear: prison hasn’t ruined his deadpan humour. He’s smart, and he’s shrewd; he’s a fox, not a hedgehog. That’s why he’s counting on lots of public support down under. “When people speak up and stand together it frightens corrupt and undemocratic power”, he says. “True democracy is the resistance of people armed with truth against lies.” I wonder whether he’s right. Australians can be a politically lazy bunch, but we’re also known for our cheeky cheerfulness, our taste for the matter-of-fact, plus our strong dislike of bullshit. We respect hard work and admire courageous achievement. We’re mawkish in the company of Ned Kelly underdogs. And so, if a political fight over his election to the Senate were to break out, strong public support for Assange might suddenly surface.
Time’s up. Not wanting to overstay my welcome, I slip on my coat, prepare to say goodbye, to pass back through the wall of mean-faced police. Assange shakes my hand, twice in fact. Both of us are pretty tired and stuck for words, so I let myself loose by asking him to ponder a wild southern hemisphere fantasy, a hero’s welcome later this year, a rapscallion’s reunion with spring sunshine, fresh ocean air, flowers, banners, tweets, whistles, haunting sounds of didgeridoos. For a few seconds, he smiles, then draws back, looks down, and glances sideways. It’s the reaction of a man who knows in his guts there are no easy solutions in sight. The cards are stacked, piled high against success. He’s trapped. He knows his fate will be decided not by legal niceties, or diplomatic rulebooks, but by politics. That’s why he’s aware that in the great dramas to come, nothing should be ruled out.
The Irish bookmaker Paddy Power lists his odds of winning a Senate seat as seven-to-two. The cautious fortune telling may be significant. Down under, nationwide polls conducted by UMR Research, the company used by the Labor Party, show (during 2012) that a clear majority of Australians think he wouldn’t receive a fair trial if extradited to the United States, and that in any case he and WikiLeaks shouldn’t be prosecuted for releasing leaked diplomatic cables. Green voters (66%) and Labor supporters (45%) are sympathetic to Assange. Significant numbers of Coalition supporters (40%) think the same way. In the most recent UMR poll, Assange tells me, around 27% of voters say they’ll vote for him.
That should be enough to slingshot him from Knightsbridge to Canberra. Set aside the cheap diatribes and what you think of Julian Assange as a person, or whether he’s done this or not achieved that. The fact is that electoral victory for him later this year would be one of those rare political miracles that make life as a citizen worth living. In a country weighed down by sub-standard politicians, sub-standard journalists and sub-standard freedom of information laws, the political triumph would be great. It would breathe badly-needed life into Australian democracy. And, yes, if the miracle happened, from that very moment the fun party down under would begin.
John Keane does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
In this three-minute interview, Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimson explains that their recovery from the economic crisis was based on actions that went against the orthodox prescriptions–Let the banks fail, introduce currency controls, provide support for the poor, don’t push austerity measures. Why are banks the “holy churches of the economy?”
The Greek economy has been crippled by the austerity demanded by international financial institutions. This Wall Street Journal video report shows how some Greeks are coping by going back to the land.
Every country is caught in the usury trap that is inherent in the global debt-money system, and all will follow the same course in turn. Those who happen to have land to go back to are the lucky ones.–t.h.g.
I traveled yesterday by motor coach from Volos to Athens, getting off at the Patissia train station and boarding the metro line. At the metro station where I got off there were taxis waiting and picking up passengers. Everything seemed normal to me. It seems that the reported demonstrations must have been limited to the area around the Parliament building, and the strike may not have been as general as the press reported.
In any case, the developing situation here in Greece is a clear manifestation of how nation states are being forced to surrender sovereignty upward to the elite international power group that controls the global system of money, banking, and finance. All other countries are caught in the same usury-debt trap and will follow in order. As this plan for an (undemocratic) new world order proceeds, national politicians will do the bidding of their global masters and the police and military will be used to suppress popular dissent. Demonstrations are often infiltrated by agents provocateur whose role it is to initiate violence and provide an excuse for police brutality and ultimately the imposition of martial law.
While it is important for people to express their disapproval and outrage, and to speak truth to power, it is essential that we exercise the power we already have to take care of ourselves and each other.
We must first of all reduce our dependence on the global systems that are controlled by the power elite and are used to exploit and repress us. We must begin by becoming independent of their money system.
It is essential that we join together in solidarity to assure that everyone’s basic needs are taken care of. We must cooperate in building new structures that enable us to satisfy our basic needs together in our own communities. Most important amongst these new structures are trading networks that enable us to exchange our goods and services without borrowing from banks and without the use of political money. This is the pathway toward economic democracy, without which political democracy remains an elusive dream.–t.h.g.
The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. —President Abraham Lincoln, before his assassination by Rothschilds’ agents
The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes. —Felix Frankfurter, United States Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Of course there is a class war, but it’s my class, the rich class, that is waging the war, and we’re winning. —Warren Buffet
There is something behind the throne greater than the King. —William Pitt, 1770
What is not already obvious here? —A Plebeian
Greetings,
In Course 101, we examined the work of some thorough and reliable researchers, giving us a basic picture of who is guiding world events, how they exercise their power, and what their basic agenda is. In 201, we will be looking at how to make use of this basic information, and we’ll look at some examples, re/ interpreting ongoing events.
But first, let’s summarize a few key points about the bankster elite, using a few quotations from our sources.
—-
…the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrive at infrequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.
In the years before and during WW1, the Secret Elite took control of virtually the entire banking, industrial and armaments might of the British Empire and the United States… Namely, J. P. Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg in the US, and Lord Nathaniel Rothschild in England
They controlled the press, the politicians and more importantly perhaps, they controlled the Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England. Professor Quigley clearly explains and details their ‘triple front penetration’ of politics, the press and education. Virtually every major geopolitical event over the last century stems from this tiny, all-powerful clique.
—-
The first thing one needs to do, to make use of this kind of information, is to contemplate a bit on what it implies, and on how it relates to what’s going on in the world today. One observation that emerges from such a contemplation is that we seem now to be in the endgame of the installation of the ‘feudalist’ system envisioned by the banksters, back in their early planning days…
By acting in concert and in secret, in alliance with associated financial institutions, the central banksters orchestrated the banking system collapse of 2008. By their control of politicians, they then achieved a transfer of insolvency from banks to national treasuries (the bailouts), creating an economic regime of unrepayable sovereign debt, a trap that will soon also ensnare the USA, Germany, and the rest. The banksters are then using this debt-enslavement to impose an austerity regime that is reducing Western populations to the level of feudal serfs, disempowered both economically and politically.
The feudal model applies quite closely to what is happening. As nations are forced to sell off all their assets (universal privatization), in a hopeless attempt to escape from insolvency, a situation is created where all land and resources will be owned by corporations, and ultimately controlled by the banksters, just as in feudal days all was owned by the lords of manors, and ultimately controlled by the crown.
The main difference seems to be that the bankster regime will be more centralized than the feudal system was. With modern communications and technology, there is no need for subsidiary lords and nobles, with their own semi-automous realms, to provide a stable political platform for the royal realm. In the bankster regime, it is more like all estates will be owned directly by the crown, with centrally-appointed estate-manager technocrats enforcing central directives locally. Exactly as we see unfolding now, most clearly in Greece, Italy, Spain, and Ireland, where Goldman Sachs, co-orchestrator of the collapse, is providing some of the estate-manager staff.
—
It seems that we have a very good fit, between design and outcomes – the bankster clique is evidently still very much in charge, on course, and in the endgame of installing their long-sought neo-feudal world order.
I emphasized that paragraph, because it is the central thing to keep always in mind when seeking to interpret the meaning of unfolding events. In particular, it is important to contemplate on what it means to be in an endgame scenario.
When you begin making your bold endgame moves, pushing toward a forced checkmate, you must have a combination worked out, so that you prevail against all available lines of defense. Otherwise your bold moves may open you up to a decisive counter-attack and rout. And quite clearly, the bankster clique has demonstrated over the years its proficiency, and thoroughness, as regards chess-like great games. If we are in the endgame, then we can be sure they have preparations in place to deal with all aspects of the transition to the new regime, taking into account alternatives available to other players in the game.
One of those players is us 99%, who might be expected to rebel, in one way or another, as we see our society being destroyed, and as the perpetrators become more and more visible, as they reveal their endgame moves. Their preparations to deal with us are very clear: the ‘anti-terrorist’ no-civil-rights legal regime, militarized and federalized police forces, and crowd-control protocols based on suppression by any means necessary. All of this facilitated by false-flag events that created the excuse. Ducks carefully arranged in a row, prior to endgame moves.
Russia and China are the players, at the geopolitical level, who have alternatives available that can effect the nature of the endgame. They are also players with an impressive centuries-long track record with chess-like engagements. They know very well the nature of the endgame they find themselves in, and they want desperately to force a multi-polar draw, and prevent a unipolar checkmate.
The bankster elite, however, have demonstrated over the years singleness of purpose, and a total unwillingness to accept anything as an outcome other than complete, unchallenged, unshared power. A multi-polar outcome is not on the table for consideration, in their endgame plans. If Russia and China will not capitulate, the regime will be forced upon their territory by whatever means necessary, based on the preparations that have been made.
Among those preparations is a first-strike nuclear capability, with US bases and missle-defense systems surrounding Russia and China, with tactical nuclear weapons widely deployed, under the control of local commanders, and with electronic satellite-based systems that can critically disable the communication and defense systems of adversaries.
—
In order to interpret unfolding events, one needs to be aware, at a visceral level, that we are in the midst of a dynamic transition process, involving the rapid demolition of an old order, and the rapid creation of a new order, all being carried out according to a carefully designed game plan. With this awareness, the mainstream media can be very helpful in tracking the ongoing moves of the endgame. For the mainstream media has a very predictable way of covering key moves in the game, key shifts in the board positions.
For a start, such moves are always given front page attention, as leading news items. Always with these moves some old-system taboo is being violated, and some new-system principle is being put in place as a justification. The function of the media is to dismiss the taboo as out-of-date thinking, and embrace the necessity and wisdom of the new principle, despite unfortunate side-effects that cannot, unfortunately be avoided.
Thus torture becomes acceptable, along with unprovoked invasions, drone strikes on the civilians of allies, targeted killings of your own citizens, supplying arms to active Al Qaeda terrorists, and the list goes on. By following the headlines associated with dramatic incidents, and reading the propaganda copy, you can track the step-by-step demolition of the old order, and the systematic construction of the new system architecture.
This applies to all aspects of society, not just to geopolitical events. Wherever you see dramatic precedents being set, in leading news stories, you are probably seeing signs of what is being abandoned, and what is being planned for the future. The example that comes most quickly to mind is the celebrated swine flu ‘pandemic’, which was carried on mainstream media for many months, and which led to the setting of several important precedents.
Not only was the definition of pandemic given a nonsense redefinition, but a regime was set up where the bankster-controlled WHO can decree a pandemic on the flimsiest of excuses, and can designate which vaccines must be used in treating it, with no accountability as regards testing, and with no liability being assumed for any ‘side effects’. In addition there was an intense and ongoing worldwide propaganda campaign about the value and necessity of getting vaccinated.
And there were clearly steps being taken toward creating a forced-vaccination regime, beginning with health workers all over the world as a test population. If total control over the global population is the goal, then the ability to inject arbitrary substances at any time into the bodies of any segment of the population is certainly a very powerful tool to have in your toolkit, whether it be to narcotize, hype-up, temporarily disable, or eliminate altogether.
And this ends Course 201, of the Realpolitik series. If some of you want to try your hand at interpretation, by delving into some dramatic media story line, we can perhaps continue with a seminar series. Your analysis is just as important as your conclusions, as regards any seminar contribution. What we’re after is an understanding of why a given precedent is relevant to the new regime, and what that indicates about the nature of the new regime.
My fall tour agenda has filled out nicely and includes an exciting assortment of presentations, workshops, and consultations.
On October 1, I will begin a five week tour that will take me to Switzerland, Greece, and the UK.
Here is a chronological list of events. If you wish to participate in any of them, please go to the indicated website or get in touch with appropriate contact person.
3-6 October. Geneva. Presentations and conferences with Community Forge. “CommunityForge is a non-profit association that designs, develops and provides complementary currency systems and tools.” (Use the “Contact” button on the website to connect with Tim Anderson). This stop will probably include a presentation at the UN Palais des Nations, Human Rights Social Forum, on October 3. My topic will be “Strategies for community empowerment and the creation of economic democracy.”
7-14 October. Crete, Greece.
On October 10 and 11, I will be a presenter at the International Sustainability Summit, to be held at the European Sustainability Academy (Sharon Jackson, Director ).
The segment on Strategic shifts in prevailing systems includes a 2 day workshop that will focus specifically upon Community Exchange Systems and Alternative currency systems for Sustainable Communities. On October 10, I will give a presentation on The Emerging Butterfly Society: Making the shift to a steady-state economy and a world that works for all. Details and registration materials can be found at: http://www.eurosustainability.org/en/esa_summit4.htm
15 October to approximately 21 October. Mainland Greece
During this time period, I will be traveling to Thessaloniki, Volos, and Athens. Specifics are still developing.
25 October. York, UK
I will be speaking at the York LETS Conference on the topic, “Why local exchanges and currencies fail to thrive, and what is required to take alternative exchange to scale.” Booking at, http://yorkaltcurrencies-efbevent.eventbrite.co.uk/ . Info at Facebook.
October 27-28. London. Events on Money and Alternative Currencies are being planned by Mary Fee of LETSlinkUK, http://www.letslinkuk.net/. Details will be posted here when available.
30 October. Ambleside (Lake District). Cumbria University, Presentation, Beyond Money, Banks, and the Left-Right Divide.
31 October. I will be delivering a free public lecture, A New Approach to Community Economic Development at Cumbria University in Lancaster, UK.
1 November. I will conduct a workshop titled, Complementary Exchange Systems: Design, Organization, and Implementation, at The University of Cumbria in Lancaster( Room AXB003) from 2pm to 5pm.
Following my participation in the Commons Conference in Berlin two years ago, I was asked to contribute a chapter to an anthology titled, The Wealth of the Commons: A world beyond market & state. This book is a “new collection of 73 essays that describe the enormous potential of the commons in conceptualizing and building a better future.” At long last, the English edition has now been published and can be ordered from Leveller’s Press,
I think the chapter I wrote for this book is one of the most succinct and information-rich essays I’ve ever written, so I’ve posted it here on this site at Reclaiming the Credit Commons.
“Quantitative Easing,” commonly referred to as “QE,” is a euphemistic expression for currency inflation, i.e., the creation of money on the basis of junk securities and empty promises. On September 14, Ben Bernanke announced that the FED would continue to inflate the dollar on an ongoing basis for “as long as it takes.” A week earlier, European Central Bank president Mario Draghi announced a similar plan to save the Euro by buying the bonds of euro-zone governments, notably Spain and Italy. “There will be no “ex ante limits on the size” of the purchases, said Draghi.” He sugar-coated the bitter pill by saying, “governments that want the ECB to buy its bonds must agree to a program of reforms and oversight by the bailout funds and possibly the International Monetary Fund.” We know what that means for the ordinary person. Two of my recent posts address these announcements (https://beyondmoney.net/2012/09/20/qe-ad-infinatum/, and https://beyondmoney.net/2012/09/21/et-tu-ecb-inflating-the-euro/).
In recent weeks, I’ve been re-reading some of E. C. Riegel’s essays. I’ll be posting the more important ones from time to time. Here is one that, although written more than 60 years ago, seems especially timely: The Right-wing Socialists.
Another important Riegel essay is, Breaking the English Tradition, which years ago I embedded, with my comments in a post to my other website Reinventingmoney.com. That post titled, The Politics of Money, can be download at here.
The first edition of my book, The End of Money and the Future of Civilization, was published by Chelsea Green Publishing in 2009. While it remains as relevant today as it was when first published the printed book has been out of print for several years. But, having had the rights reverted to me by my publisher, I am making the entire book available for free in PDF format. You can read it or download it HERE. If you would like a hard copy of the first edition used copies can still be found on Amazon.com, Abe books, Thrift books and elsewhere.
Better still, you can avail yourself of the new revised and expanded 2024 edition which I have been working on for almost two years and is almost complete. Eighteen chapters have already been posted and can be freely read or download HERE.
My previous books, as published, may be freely accessed in digital format by clicking the title below.
Beyond Money 