Luke
11th November 2010, 10:31
Interesting article that should make all those believing in "change" via political means ( I mean- any :pleasantry:"political change" . Including beloved "disclosure". Or going back to gold standard or whatever whitewashing current structure)
Whose Tea Party? by Butler Shaffer
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer225.html)
Politics is a means of preventing people from taking part in what properly concerns them.
~ Paul Valery
With the 2010 general elections over, attention shifts – as it always does following each election – to consideration of the next presidential steeplechase. "Who’s it gonna be?, who’s it gonna be?, who’s it gonna be?," is the refrain already begun on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and other directors of the Boobeoisie Chorus. For a politically-centralized society to maintain its pyramidal structure, it is essential that men and women be constantly reminded of their subject status. An ongoing curiosity as to the identity of their future masters keeps their minds from wandering to more important matters. The continued health of a democratic state requires the interplay of three factors: [1] the covert processes of realpolitik wherein the electorate is consigned the role of rubber-stamping either of two fungible candidates offered up by the owners of the system; [2] reinforcement of the fantasy that voters have some real-world influence over the selection of their political rulers; and [3] the illusion that the winning candidate is the one who is really running the government.
There comes a time when the contradictions, conflicts, and corruption of the state become so apparent that even Boobus begins to suspect that the political system is in need of a major overhaul, if not dismantling. Only the most gullible can utter the utilitarian premises of government with a straight face. The "greatest good for the greatest number," the "general welfare," and "common will" are phrases more suited to the creative comedy routines of George Carlin, Jon Stewart, or Jay Leno, than to men and women trying to formulate some meaning to politics. We are at such a point in time.
Libertarian and anarchist sentiments have long existed among people as alternative ways of thinking about how societies are to be organized. The violent and predatory assumptions upon which governments exist are rarely questioned even among thoughtful people until the costs of political destructiveness reach levels that can no longer be ignored. Ordinary individuals are suffocating under burdensome costs that benefit only those special interests who are either in political power or connected to such power.
I wrote an earlier article of the connection that has long existed between entertainment and the political system. We have kept ourselves dumbed-down – hence, subservient to external authority – by our insistence upon being kept amused. The word "muse" refers to a state of deep thought; "a-muse" means without such a state of thought. This is why there is such a symbiotic relationship between statism and the entertainment industry.
The business interests of entertainers – including members of the mainstream media – are so tied to the interests of the political power structure that they will continue their role. The 1997 film, Wag the Dog, could almost be regarded as a documentary! As art imitates life, establishment producers will once again turn to Hollywood for seasoned professionals to fill movie and television screens with more pro-state messages. Given the hostile mood of millions of Americans, the owners will not be so brazen as to resuscitate the 1960s’ Saturday morning cartoon show, Super President, but the latent sentiment will not be lagging. Script writers will rewrite the words to bring the story up-to-date, and new actors will be discovered to recite their lines, but the theme will remain the same. Costumers and makeup artists will be called upon to enhance appearances, while stage directors will insist upon the actors’ positions.
Now, author is focused on "Tea Party" .. Frankly, I do not give a damn about it. One look at who sponsors it says all (Koch Brothers & Co). Just another "horns" maneuver by establishment.
My feeling is simple: we need no party at all. No government. No written laws. When left alone, people both cooperate and compete, but this is on personal level. Create some bigger structure, and you have armies fighting, raping and pillaging.
What I feel: we can do better by simply believing, that there is no thing we cannot accomplish when working with people we know and respect. And by to not working and sharing with people we do not want to.
Keep it simple. Communicate. Do not be afraid
It's all we need to do , really. What we shouldn't do is transferring the power of making decisions about our lives to some unnamed people far far away, who are really unaccountable to what they do, and to what they force us to do.
Problem is, such scheme exist in every single "country" out there (but then what is "country" if not another artificial construct used to divide people en-masse).
Point is we have created so many artificial "boxes" that it is hard for us to thin outside them. Especially when we are constantly distracted by more and more irrelevant "News", which hardly change anything. Yet, even here, we crave for thrill of watching something happening. Just observe how many views "drama" threads have in comparison to what transpired from them. Thrill or real questions , mesdames and messieurs?
We are in occupied territory. Time to deal with it.
Whose Tea Party? by Butler Shaffer
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer225.html)
Politics is a means of preventing people from taking part in what properly concerns them.
~ Paul Valery
With the 2010 general elections over, attention shifts – as it always does following each election – to consideration of the next presidential steeplechase. "Who’s it gonna be?, who’s it gonna be?, who’s it gonna be?," is the refrain already begun on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and other directors of the Boobeoisie Chorus. For a politically-centralized society to maintain its pyramidal structure, it is essential that men and women be constantly reminded of their subject status. An ongoing curiosity as to the identity of their future masters keeps their minds from wandering to more important matters. The continued health of a democratic state requires the interplay of three factors: [1] the covert processes of realpolitik wherein the electorate is consigned the role of rubber-stamping either of two fungible candidates offered up by the owners of the system; [2] reinforcement of the fantasy that voters have some real-world influence over the selection of their political rulers; and [3] the illusion that the winning candidate is the one who is really running the government.
There comes a time when the contradictions, conflicts, and corruption of the state become so apparent that even Boobus begins to suspect that the political system is in need of a major overhaul, if not dismantling. Only the most gullible can utter the utilitarian premises of government with a straight face. The "greatest good for the greatest number," the "general welfare," and "common will" are phrases more suited to the creative comedy routines of George Carlin, Jon Stewart, or Jay Leno, than to men and women trying to formulate some meaning to politics. We are at such a point in time.
Libertarian and anarchist sentiments have long existed among people as alternative ways of thinking about how societies are to be organized. The violent and predatory assumptions upon which governments exist are rarely questioned even among thoughtful people until the costs of political destructiveness reach levels that can no longer be ignored. Ordinary individuals are suffocating under burdensome costs that benefit only those special interests who are either in political power or connected to such power.
I wrote an earlier article of the connection that has long existed between entertainment and the political system. We have kept ourselves dumbed-down – hence, subservient to external authority – by our insistence upon being kept amused. The word "muse" refers to a state of deep thought; "a-muse" means without such a state of thought. This is why there is such a symbiotic relationship between statism and the entertainment industry.
The business interests of entertainers – including members of the mainstream media – are so tied to the interests of the political power structure that they will continue their role. The 1997 film, Wag the Dog, could almost be regarded as a documentary! As art imitates life, establishment producers will once again turn to Hollywood for seasoned professionals to fill movie and television screens with more pro-state messages. Given the hostile mood of millions of Americans, the owners will not be so brazen as to resuscitate the 1960s’ Saturday morning cartoon show, Super President, but the latent sentiment will not be lagging. Script writers will rewrite the words to bring the story up-to-date, and new actors will be discovered to recite their lines, but the theme will remain the same. Costumers and makeup artists will be called upon to enhance appearances, while stage directors will insist upon the actors’ positions.
Now, author is focused on "Tea Party" .. Frankly, I do not give a damn about it. One look at who sponsors it says all (Koch Brothers & Co). Just another "horns" maneuver by establishment.
My feeling is simple: we need no party at all. No government. No written laws. When left alone, people both cooperate and compete, but this is on personal level. Create some bigger structure, and you have armies fighting, raping and pillaging.
What I feel: we can do better by simply believing, that there is no thing we cannot accomplish when working with people we know and respect. And by to not working and sharing with people we do not want to.
Keep it simple. Communicate. Do not be afraid
It's all we need to do , really. What we shouldn't do is transferring the power of making decisions about our lives to some unnamed people far far away, who are really unaccountable to what they do, and to what they force us to do.
Problem is, such scheme exist in every single "country" out there (but then what is "country" if not another artificial construct used to divide people en-masse).
Point is we have created so many artificial "boxes" that it is hard for us to thin outside them. Especially when we are constantly distracted by more and more irrelevant "News", which hardly change anything. Yet, even here, we crave for thrill of watching something happening. Just observe how many views "drama" threads have in comparison to what transpired from them. Thrill or real questions , mesdames and messieurs?
We are in occupied territory. Time to deal with it.