Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The U.S. Coup d'Etat, and the Virtual Reality Construct It Required


The frequent reader here will know, as do others who read essays and comment on sites like Truthout, Useless Knowledge, MySpace, and others, that my own purpose in participation is sociological and historical, an effort to learn by give-and-take debate concerning the health of the nation’s public discourse. In any democracy, you see, examination of the public discourse and debate amounts to a diagnostic look at the society and nation’s mental systematic health, especially where its health as a viable democracy is concerned. While television, its content and popularity, as well as that of newspapers, tabloids, and the like, tell the researcher a great deal, nothing is more indicative of the society’s mentality as a nation than what the individual citizen says and how he says it.

For someone like myself, the spoken and written opinions of individuals speak both to the mental state of the nation and what history – historians will do the same – will say about our time. More, in a nation “dumbing down” (to borrow from the late Steve Allen) and becoming more and more semi-literate, Malapropping, and solecistic, it’s sometimes lugubriously comical.

A while back, I published a sampling of the diatribe and invective typical of “America’s” two political extremes. Here are a couple more. A guy named David writes (I have capitalized, punctuated, and corrected spelling only sufficiently to make content legible and intelligible, trying to preserve otherwise):

“hahaha (sic) you blast capitalism which has created the greatest wealth technology and power the word has ever seen which in turn is feeding the world. Then you go and say the government is too strong. You think socialism would be any better? Or how about a socialist government? Would that be smaller? Have you ever heard of the social contract that our nation’s constitution is based on (that’s russo [sic] for you) you’re just a mumbling, bumbling liberal who is mad because Kerry lost. You’re so full of shit it makes me laugh. You think you really know how osama (sic) operates? Then why don’t you catch him jackass? What good is a nation that cannot protect itself? Better yet since you’re so scared of having your personal liberties violated why don’t you move somewhere better like china?

On the other hand, a soldier in Iraq, a Private First Class whose name I’ll withhold for what should be obvious reasons, says:

"You really tell it like it is, and you’re right. If extra troops start coming here, into Baghdad, for instance, you'll (sic) start reducing the anti-American violence. That’ll show some fast results for the Bush administration. And that way, they’ll say, 'Hey, we won the war, let's get out of here,' That’s really dishonest, because these guys will be just like the Viet Cong, they can wait it out. They know we're not going to be here forever, and they know that when we're gone, it's all theirs."

Straight from the front, and the horse’s mouth, sports fans.

Referring to my “Mongoose Trick” Opinions the soldier added, “Keep it up.” It’s interesting that another soldier, this one a U.S. Army Major, expressed some time ago an opinion almost identical to the more recent one, that of the Private First Class.

Of course, I don’t suppose a thing as obvious as that would escape many people who remain impervious to the blizzard of federal propaganda being dispersed these days – certainly not a soldier in Iraq.

One thing further, and with reference to “David’ remarks, the frequent reader here will also remember that during my several exchanges with members of sites like Truthout and Useless Knowledge, I was identified by people there as a “fucking neo-con.” Interesting, the differences in perception of the same essays and writer – what?

Having participated in exchanges like these and those earlier for nearly two years now, I now have what I believe is a fairly accurate opinion concerning the state of matters in question. All of it is consistent with my basic premise, that sometime between the years 1948 and 1952, the nation’s military industrial complex seized power in what amounted to a covert coup d’etat. Employing newly-realized, state-of-the-art behaviorist propaganda methods like Operation Mockingbird, the plotters seized control of the nation and society’s collective mind.

George Orwell, he of novels like “1984” and “Animal Farm,” was wrong, it turns out, only as a matter of detail.

Persons for whom the idea of a U.S. coup d’etat is too difficult to accept, moreover, seem only to confirm the fact of what occurred. Like a hypnotized person believes he can still do what he pleases, he nonetheless never does. In actual fact, moreover, historians, sociologists, and others have long been aware that such a thing was not only possible, but probable. Kurt Gödel, an Austrian logician, mathematician, and philosopher of mathematics, once attempted to point this out to the judge at his citizenship nearing.

Having become aware (as, incidentally, so did I while still in high school) of a logical contradiction in the U.S. Constitution, Gödel had to be shushed by none other than Albert Einstein when he tried to point out that a dictatorship could be installed legally in the United States. We are seeing how right he was today.

Once, parenthetically and on the outside chance that one of my readers will enjoy the irony there, I actually waded my way through “Gödel Numbers” and his proof of the incompleteness theorems. I thought I understood it, too – only to be shown subsequently by a mathematics professor at North Iowa University that I was wrong. I didn’t understand it. A few years ago, discovering the professor’s argument among some papers, I realized that his proof of his disproof was flawed by a contradiction. I was right, after all – or was I?!

As I said, the irony here will be apparent only to someone familiar with Gödel and his theorem. On the other hand . . .

Okay, I’ll knock it off.

Anyway, Gödel’s observation isn’t the only example of our system’s vulnerability to the power-mad like G.W. Bush and his family. As historian and author H.G. Wells (“The Time Machine,” “The War of the Worlds,” “The Invisible Man,” and “The Island of Doctor Moreau”) once wrote, "The Social Contract is nothing more or less than a vast conspiracy of human beings to lie to and humbug themselves and one another for the general good. Lies are the mortar that bind the savage individual man into the social masonry."

And this, after all and by any realistic and mathematical standard, is the biggest collection of dedicated liars in human history.

It was while still in high school sixty years ago – also something I’ve already related here – that I discovered the power of mathematics where the dispelling of myths and finding out liars is concerned. The first example, I suppose, had to do with the Biblical story of the flood. It’s all there: forty days and forty nights, rain that covered the face of the earth to the dept of a certain mountain’s altitude. When I did the numbers, it was incontrovertibly apparent that a boat like that described as was Noah’s Ark would have been swamped hundreds of times over. In fact, a nuclear aircraft carrier would have been so swamped.

I got in all kinds of trouble, too. When I likewise realized that the story of the Holocaust, taken with figures concerning populations published decades before it happened, was inconsistent and contradictory, I didn’t make anyone happy with my discovery, to say nothing of doubt and proof. When I contended further by comparing the story with data obtained concerning the largest stock yards and cattle slaughtering process in the world then, Chicago, I only pissed people off all the more.

Myths are things of sacred nature, it seems – and no nation holds its myths more sacrosanct than does this one.

The truth, the central theme and purpose of this website, is that the U.S. public lives encapsulated in a state of virtual reality constructed for them by the federal government and the military industrial complex that owns and controls the latter. There is no other logical and therefore reasonable explanation for eventuality since the time of their quasi-military coup. Let’s begin where we left off yesterday, and proceed with examples.

Like any phenomenon, the fact that the people of the United States believe things that are demonstrably impossible must be attributable to something. Merely on the basis of what I discussed yesterday, the fact that the vaunted law of our “Nation of Laws” is both far too voluminous to be known by any judge or court, to say nothing of too complicated and inconsistent to be constitutional, it is possible to conclude validly that what the public is led to believe – and does, in fact believe – is false.

Why would that be? It must be – and there is a way to prove it – that it is due that “social contract” – and the “vast conspiracy” it represents. In my book, “Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story,” I related having heard a speaker from the Fletcher School of Diplomacy argue to a symposium that the government needed and would have to “deceive, confuse, and bewilder” the public in order to continue maintenance of order in the future. As unaware as I was then of his reasons and what he knew the future would be, there can be no doubt that he was talking about continued success of what he knew had been nothing less than a coup d’etat.

This wasn’t Gödel Numbers, and you didn’t have to be a philosopher of mathematics to recognize the "future" he was talking about.

Next, we have a tax system that is as obviously illegal as anything conceivable. Shown repeatedly and for decades to be incapable of the uniform interpretation require for either constitutional legality or contractual enforceability, it is nevertheless protected by the courts sworn to uphold that same constitution and system of law. More, and in a manner similar to the law in general, it is impossible for any court to so much as read the tax code. The Nation of Laws is – demonstrably - a myth. It’s a lie, a lie believed by the public it victimizes.

It’s a lie used to create a reality that is only virtually real. The “American” public lives in a state not unlike that of a child at Christmas time, believing that a little, fat man in a red suit trimmed in white fur will come with a sleigh full of toys, a sleigh somehow towed through the sky by reindeer – tiny ones.

The credulity of the U.S. public, in fact, will doubtlessly be the topic of much interest for historians of the future. How, they will ask, would any of these people sitting on a jury and confronted with evidence concerning an individual accused, evidence like that provided by history concerning establishment of the CIA and the aftermath – including unlimited expenditures for the latter and military expenditures for the military of fifteen trillion dollars – reach any verdict other than “guilty?”

The accused, voted into the position of company CEO by certain factions among stockholders, then gutted the company’s finances, spending in a manner profligate beyond the dreams of anyone involved, enriching in the process all of those certain stockholders at the defrauded expense of the rest. Even when the company later became bankrupt (remind anyone of a certain company of late?), the CEO and his friends somehow managed to stay in power, while the remaining stockholders were obliged to pony up funds sufficient to keep the company solvent.

Were a court subsequently charged with reorganization of the company to sit on the matter, how do we imagine it would find where the CEO in question was concerned?

Where the corporation with the “cooked books” is the U.S. Government, try to explain the state of the U.S. military. Sixty-three nuclear submarines, each capable of destroying any enemy - to say nothing of the entire planet - many, many times? Fifteen nuclear carriers? How many B-1 and B-2 bombers? How many MIRV intercontinental ballistic missiles (again, capable of destroying the planet several times)?

Try to imagine, were you the CEO of the mythical company representing the U.S. today, explaining to a court and jury that kind of spendthrift redundancy. Then, having spent for a surplus of, let’s say for sake of the example, vehicles one or two hundred times those necessary to do business, amounts so staggering as to beggar credence, you are unable to arrange for delivery of a stockholder to the airport.

The company, in the business of, say, bridge construction in far away places can’t manage one across the local creek – which is on the other side of the main office building’s parking lot.

The inescapable fact – one, as a matter of fact, provable easily – is that the U.S. public lives in a nation that couldn’t possibly be what it professes to be. The list of evidence – all often defeatable by proof as universally accepted and incontrovertible as mathematics – goes on and on. Here are only a few:

1. “Democracy” (or Republic) – here, a process wherein and undeniably only the most powerful and wealthy choose two candidates for election. The candidates are also and invariably representatives of the powerful and wealthy. The U.S. election process is, moreover, hopelessly flawed – a fact demonstrated incontrovertible by Arrow’s Theorem and another example of the public believing to be what is physically impossible.
With the public privately eighty percent against any given issue – the continued war in Iraq, for instance – they are invariably during post World War history ignored by the supposedly representative government. The fact alone of thirty-six thousand lobbyists in Washington, D.C. attests to the absurdity of any contention concerning public government by representation.
If the people, rather than the military industrial complex corporations, rule by way of their representatives, why would corporations’ lobbyists be at the seat of government?

2. “A free market economy” – where an agency of government wields without restraint the power to destroy, taxation (clearly, a contradiction in terms). In the U.S., merciless taxation - to say nothing, again, of more than twenty thousand laws, statutes, ordinance, rules, and regulations - restrains business and trade by the common man, while sixty-one percent of corporate “America” pays no tax at all and enjoys legislative favor like nothing the common man can so much as conceive. The oil companies, for instance, have enjoyed as much as seventy billion dollars in "set asides," "allowances," and outright subsidies. Free market, indeed.

3. “A capitalist society” – where the same conditions as (2) persist; where – by way of 150,000 new laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations yearly, the ruling class both enforces socialist processes and rules upon ninety-five percent of society and keeps them politically powerless. Using the power to destroy that is taxation, the tax system – whose original designers plainly stated their intent to provide for exactly that - the rich and powerful prevent competition either in business or for political power. These – (2) and (3) here - are facts made inexorable by mere observation and demonstration.

That’s enough for today. More – much more - tomorrow.

P.S. (for the folks still wanting to talk about the Lt. Watada matter): thanks for another example of what I discuss here – the Nation of Laws part. The judge in the Watada case has ruled that an order to deploy must be deemed lawful. How about an order to deploy against the people of the United States, judge? We know that a questionnaire handed to junior grade officers only a few years ago demanded to know if they would be willing to fire on citizens of the country.
As I said some time ago, this is going to be very interesting. An order to deploy in an undeclared war – one of aggression or not – is illegal, just as is an order to go to a foreign country and kill one of its citizens (I know about that one first hand, remember?). The two are in reality the same. The War Powers Act, so called, and the president’s supposed justification for Iraq and elsewhere is not a law. It’s a congressional resolution. Whether congressional resolutions have the weight of law remains legally to be seen. Lieutenant Watada – and anyone else with the balls to do what he’s doing – has the Commander in Chief and the military industrial complex over a barrel.
But we’ll see what happens. The Nation of Laws, don’t forget, is a myth. Myths are lies.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home