September 27, 2013

The DC Navy Yard shooting marks yet another disturbing and tragic event that illustrates the dangers of lax gun laws and limited access to mental healthcare. Irrational notions that gunman and former US serviceman Aaron Alexis may have been under government surveillance and one or more forms of electronic harassment have nonetheless arisen. These thought crimes are not helpful in this time of national mourning and point to the sheer lunacy of those who traffic in them.

Alexis etched the messages, “My ELF Weapon” and “Better off this way” on the barrel of the shotgun he used to murder 12 people. Our law enforcement agencies and major news media remind us that these seemingly cryptic notes, one of which has been incorrectly interpreted as “My Extremely Low Frequency Weapon,” only indicate the gunman’s deteriorating mental state. They have nothing—repeat nothing—to do with the electronic microwave devices or other mind control techniques the deranged Alexis claims he was targeted with.

It is true that there are numerous sophisticated technologies that US government agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, have developed to manipulate, harass, and even cause terminal mental illness in enemy subjects at a distance. Some of these weapons entail fine-tuned microwave and infrared beams that will indeed cause a subject to hear voices or unusual sounds “inside their heads.” The effects of these devices closely resemble Alexis’ verbal descriptions of his torment.

Yet the US government would never use such gadgetry on an American citizen—particularly one who has dutifully served his country—to make him do something against his personal will. These devices are only used to combat evil terrorist forces that threaten our freedom.

Another prevalent untruth involves Alexis’ use of psychotropic drugs and their alleged contribution to his homicidality. Drugs prescribed by licensed medical practitioners are the result of sound scientific research, are very safe, and their benefits far outweigh the side effects.

The United States has a rich tradition of integrity in its federal intelligence and law enforcement endeavors. Individuals such as J. Edgar Hoover, Alan Dulles, and Richard Helms have helped to combat or neutralize nefarious forces threatening American liberties at home and abroad—figures like Al Capone, Nikita Krushchev, Fidel Castro, the Kennedy brothers (here and here), and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The US government and its allies have always been there to aid and protect Americans in their time of need.

It is important to remain vigilant, enthusiastically accept what our mass media define as the relevant events and issues of the day, and keep in mind that there are still illogical, paranoid, and even dangerous thought criminals in our midst. These un-American parties dismiss our great country’s true history and claim that certain entities in government have wicked intentions and are out to relentlessly hoodwink the American people. This crippled reasoning tends to sow suspicion among faithful Americans and thereby inhibit wholehearted trust in and allegiance to the state, as well as to our peaceful, compassionate and noble leader Obama.

The world is a dangerous place and there are many evils threatening our freedoms. The terrorist al-Qaeda network bedevils us abroad while ticking time bombs like Aaron Alexis could go off at any minute back home. Fortunately, the hundreds of billions of dollars Americans pay each year to sustain the Department of Defense and the many lettered agencies under the Department of Homeland Security will protect us from depravity and harm, providing us with the peace of mind to bravely go about our daily lives in these troubled times.


Republished at on September 29, 2013.

Leave a Reply

57 thought on “An Important Message From the Ministry of Truth”
  1. Oh, please, I gave up drinking the koolaid a long time ago ! “Would never use this advanced technology against it’s own”…….? You jest, I assume. If you believe the tripe you’re spouting, that’s YOUR right. But don’t ask me to accept it as I am far too busy to address this post point by point w/ documented proof otherwise. It’s a shame & disgrace to both journalism & America that we have to turn to “Russia Today” to get real news of what’s going on in the world.

      1. OK, so I’ve been wading through BS for so long I can’t recognize satire any more. When YOU’re 70 yo & a 5x cancer survivor, you, too, will feel you deserve more than “knucklehead”……”whippersnapper” ! lol

      1. No, Dave, actually about 6 yrs. ago….tv & newspapers left my life. Actually, this old granny has been on the soapbox for sooooo long she’s evidently lost her sense of humor & did NOT recognize it as satire. You know, I still run into people who refuse to even consider what is going on right around them just might be for real (or a lie).

    1. Sorry, Jeff, if I came on a bit too strong. This OLD “granny w/ a gun” is just weary of all the BS…so weary I can’t even recognize satire, evidently. And to think…….I USED to be “fun” & had a great sense of humor………..go figure ? LOL

  2. Brilliant! This post illustrates the great need for something French philosopher Paul Ricouer (1913-2005) described in his ‘Freud and Philosophy’ (1970): the importance of an interpretive system he called the ‘school of suspicion’ which looks for motives behind a theory’s claims to meaning: impulses, class interests, will to power. This became an essential component of critical literary and social theory. We learn to read every statement in a story as meaning the opposite of what it seems to say in order to unmask motivated falsehoods and deceptions. As interpreters we uncover what is latent because every perspective may conceal others. This approach teaches us to notice political speech that hides oppression and discrimination, to be attentive to depth and complexity, to ‘suspect’ that more may be going on than meets the eye. This is how I have read your post to great profit. Ricouer also described a ‘school of faith or restoration of meaning’ which is where I would place your work. Thanks so much !

  3. James’ first reference source is an article by Steven DiBasio written for Veterans Today. It is mindblowing and positively scary, even if only partially true. The technical development of the ability to drive people crazy has apparently greatly increased since the well known psychologist at McGill university Hebb introduced sensory depravation in the early 1950’s. These techniques were advanced by the psychiatrist Cameron who was simultaneously president of the American psychiatric association and a CIA agent. His evil work was detailed in THE SHOCK DOCTRINE.

    For the latest developments, which may be highly relevant to these homicidal sprees by apparently crazed individuals, click on NOTIONS, the first link in the above article.

  4. The president has decided and there will be no discussion. If you do not agree, you are the enemy and the war is in progress.

    Senior Obama Adviser Compares House Republicans To Terrorists, Kidnappers, And Arsonists
    Read more:

    There is no need for conversations we have the support of the president and that is pretty good.

    It’s dangerous. It’s very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War.

  5. “Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold and you sold me.” George Orwell 1984
    “But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” George Orwell 1984

    I absolutely loved this cynical satirical mini masterpiece reflecting the new wave of Orwellian propaganda propagating the media and minds of the American public. Thank you. Big Brother is very proud of you and has faith that you now love him too (one eye wink).

  6. Yes, indeed, but it is even scarier than it appears. First of all, why believe that Aaron Alexis actually killed anyone? Then why believe that he actually DID scratch “My ELF Weapon” on the barrel of his gun? And why believe this was his gun? If the feds can produce Satam al-Suqami’s passport on 9/11 (oh, excuse me, it was found by a “passerby”), they can surely produce an etched gun stock.

    Moving forward, why believe the supposed “surveillance photos” and “surveillance video” published in the NYT on Thursday and available at:

    are authentic? And if they are (although I sincerely doubt it), why, pray tell, was someone not watching the surveillance camera/s? Not too mention the fact that responders were told to stand down, and the radios of the police and firefighters stopped working after they entered the building.

    Yes, it is interesting to think that the US govt/military/darpa/whatever might REALLY have been blasting Alexis with ELF weapons. But, hey! This idea is based on the layers of lies that the media has crafted to hook us.

    My point is this: you absolutely can not believe anything the MSM tells you. In fact, if they tell it to you, it is most likely NOT TRUE. So rather than chase after their red herrings, which can be entertaining I admit, why not question Every Single Last Thing they push at us?

    1. The bottom line is regardless of what is actually true or not in the msm narratives the end result is always the same. It creates division distrust and anger, all necessary elements to enduce revolution or acting out which is then used to justify the goverments desire for more control of the masses. Three years ago the bookstore shelves were packed with hundreds of copies of1984. Thats a blatantly obvious attempt imo to push a narrative as well as an agenda. That along with the trolls and shills that always attempt to incite rage with insults and bigoted remarks that make their presence known on all news sites, alternative news sites and anywhere they can go to attempt to get a response.

    2. You have noted two of the glaring problems. Imagine the Naval Yard only looking at surveillance after the fact – like some 7-11 market – to identify the robbers. They might very well have had something in place to watch for theft of equipment, but since great pains have been made to show how important this facility is, how there is secret clearance needed to go there, you wonder why the monitoring is not done continuously and live.

      The other is the “overkill” factor of the rifle’s 2 slogans. I just find that hard to believe. It’s like the anthrax notes. Once they had to admit the anthrax was domestic, not much more attention was made to the construction of their message or its attempt at misleading one to think Arabs sent them. In this case, the purpose of the messages on the gun is to reinforce the idea that Alexis is delusional, insane (so should not have been able to purchase a weapon). In other words, both types of messages contain purpose – to brand the act itself a special way. “Better off this way” and “My E-L-F weapon” are arguably as phony as we now know the anthrax letter messages were (“Death to Israel, Death to USA, Take Penicillin”). It’s kind of like the observation Gore Vidal made about all these would-be assassins’ diaries – that modern Americans don’t keep diaries, that somehow these are constructions by the kind of characters who take their English major job prospects and go to work for intelligence agencies which is their only hope of getting hired.

  7. The Western truth tradition of the White Man is increasingly obsolete. We are living at a time in history when we are undergoing a truth revolution in social and political theory that is changing the way we think about and perceive people. The conceptual language, ideology, and very style of discourse is in transition, subverting our inherited conceptions and preconceptions of reality, especially political and social reality.

    Notice that James used a different style to state truths that could not be credibly stated in conventional prose. Truthers of different backgrounds tend to gravitate to Orwell, because he violated the authorized truth consensus. He stated truths that could not be stated in academic political science because they were not politically scientific. The implications of the truths are revolutionary, so they are not discuss seriously within political science, perhaps the most cowardly, conservative, and intellectually dishonest of the many sub-disciplines of American social science.

    These blogs, or the best of them, fertilize the ground for the revolutionary ideological world-view currently in the process of formation.
    In the meantime we live in a world where our truth tradition is dying historically and a revolutionary one has not yet been born. An uncomfortable, exciting, and interesting time, and you know what the Chinese thought of interesting times.

    1. To my thinking the point of this forum is to examine the twisting of reality, i.e., “truth” by nefarious entities who operate behind the scenes of natural comprehension. “Scientific politics”? Or “politically scientific”
      thought processes seem an oxymoron. Those terms might resonate only in the mind of power brokers who use their catbird seat to control.

      True change and social revolution happens organically. It is not progress when it is manipulated to conform with a preconceived managed plotline. What we are witnessing can be construed as the rise of the oppressed after eons of domination; on the other hand, it can also be viewed as a clever sleight of hand to oppress all, under the guise of ascending democracy.

      When the economic gap between top and bottom widens to a yawning canyon and we are in a fight to retain even a smidgen of personal sovereignty, it can hardly be ascertained as progress. Those at the tip of the heirarchy are laughing all the way to the bank. They are successfully waring against humanity. Orwell could never have perceived the depth of the crime from his vantage; our technology has outun our biology and humans are obsolete.

      1. “Orwell could never have perceived the depth of the crime from his vantage; our technology has outun our biology and humans are obsolete.”

        Marilyn, I agree with your overall idea in what you write in this comment, but I’d argue that you get one aspect wrong–or, better still, get it all right but haven’t thought it all the way through. Orwell DID get it exactly right.

        ““Scientific politics”….Those terms might resonate only in the mind of power brokers who use their catbird seat to control.”

        This is exactly the point. In 1984, O’Brian describes the history of politics. There has always been the High, the Middle, and the Low, he says, and as the High become increasingly dependent on the Middle to administer the affairs of the state, the Middle grow in power and eventually contrive to overthrow the High; and the cycle repeats. O’Brian reveals to Winston Smith the secret of the world he’s rebelling against: at one point the High figured out the cycle, and devised a way to stop it, and keep themselves in perpetual power. It was the very science of politics that held the secret to stopping the cycle.

        I contend that your “power brokers” are Orwell’s ruling class, and they, today, believe that they have indeed discovered O’Brian’s key to stopping history.

        “True change and social revolution happens organically.”

        I’ll bet most readers here will disagree, but I believe that there is no such thing. At least, I can’t find such an example in history. Can you? (On thought, I’d aver that the Reformation might be one real example, but the elites sure spilled an awful lot of blood recovering from it.)

        ” It is not progress when it is manipulated to conform with a preconceived managed plotline.”

        True. If I’m right about he Reformation, that one example of “true change and social revolution” that happened organically is the exception that proves the rule. Even though it was not originally “manipulated to conform with a preconceived managed plotline”, it ended up being completely co-opted by the elites. It certainly had ongoing progress, that we can benefit from to this day, if we choose to do so, but that’s only a small part of the historical aftermath of the event–once the thing was a fait accompli, the powers that rule the world bent it to their overall plan. The rulers still rule; the Low never do–and until the Lord returns, never will.

        “What we are witnessing can be construed as the rise of the oppressed after eons of domination”

        I see zero evidence of that. Jesus said “the poor you will always have with you.” The oppressed will never rise up. They are Orwell’s Proles, and while James prominently quotes Winston’s only hope that the Proles will wake up, the one time he (Winston Smith) actually talks to one, he quickly realizes that that hope is false.

        “on the other hand, it can also be viewed as a clever sleight of hand to oppress all, under the guise of ascending democracy”

        Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about.

        “Those at the tip of the heirarchy are laughing all the way to the bank. They are successfully waring [sic] against humanity.”

        That laughter you hear is O’Brian’s, as he and his chums are setting up Orwell’s dystopia. That’s what this web site is chronicling. Bette Davis said it: Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night.


        1. Excellent post and comments. I was particularly intrigued by Marilyn J. A. and Patrick’s comments. So much to think about. Yes, I’ve been feeling that the elites are “laughing” at us. Very insightful that this corresponds with the Highs figuring out the cycle in “1984”. I think most people on some level (we’ve talked about this in another thread) feel that something just isn’t right. In the “1984” cycle you say the Middles would counteract the power of the Highs. Maybe indeed this is why there has been such an effort to gut the U. S. Middle Class. Weaken the Middle class and that will help the Highs keep a stranglehold on power.

          In a way, I think the Lows may be feeling that things need to change; for example, the strikes at fast food restaurants and WalMarts. But it’s hard for them to make any progress without the support of the Middle Class. And we know what happened to Dr. King when he talked of a “Poor People’s Movement.”

          I don’t know whether to be hopeful or despairing. Fighting this thing will take such effort, yet I don’t see too many taking action. On the other hand, a couple of posters at The Guardian said they’d like to see an article about how to fight/ organizations/ actions fighting the NSA surveillance behemoth. There are some who do want to see real changes, but will this ever be a critical mass?

          So what to do? Well, as is usually a good policy, start with prayer, I guess. Pray hard!

        2. Science has catapulted over the march of human physiology. Human biology evolved over millennia, with many leaps of pure happenstance. We have gone from horse-drawn carriages to space station fly-byes in hardly a century. The world is now in the throes of a scientific technocracy Orwell could have only imagined. Singularity–the melding of man with machine–is possible, rendering the spiritual man obsolete. MK Ultra is not the only program in practice which disrupts brain waves. So is HAARP and geoengineering via chemtrails; these techniques are deployed to purposefully change the biosphere and completely control life on earth. Orwell’s perspective was from a political viewpoint, to my thinking; he structured “1984” to denounce the threat of a Communist system with its totalitarian construct and suppression of free will.

        3. Continuing with Patrick’s cogent observations: Am I wrong in thinking the Reformation was brought about by the invention of the printing press, allowing widespread information to seep into the minds of the ‘great unwashed’? And also,iconoclastic movements such as Martin Luther’s indictment of Vatican corruption and the questioning of an earth-centered theocracy by Galileo, which challenged established Church doctrine. These were leaps organic in nature–not impressed upon the people by outside forces. Those outside forces are in full power mode today. They are forcing attitudes that normally take generations to gradually assimilate into a culture. There is bound to be blowback and, IMO, that is exactly what the powers-that-be are instigating. Look to the Muslim immigration into Europe. The situation is reaching critical mass.

        4. “Martin Luther’s indictment of Vatican corruption and the questioning of an earth-centered theocracy by Galileo, which challenged established Church doctrine. These were leaps organic in nature–not impressed upon the people by outside forces.”

          Precisely. That’s why it’s the only historical example I can think of, where a genuine grassroots upheaval emerged and changed the future. All other so-called “revolutions” quickly end up with conditions just about the same, only the people are even less free than they were before.

          Your comment about the Gutenberg is only partially correct. The rethinking of Christian faith and practice began a century before Luther, with John Huss; the corruption in the Church was long recognized. Luther himself did not intend to break away from Rome, he was a humble priest who just wanted Rome to clean up its act; it was a large number of people across Europe who used the new printing press to spread his writings that forced a break with an intransigent Catholic Church; but that had not been Luther’s plan. It was a movement whose time had come. Because it was real, and organic, it could not be stopped, only partially contained, and then only by centuries of bloody war.

  8. Darn it! Read an article the other day where the accused Boston bomber’s attorneys were objecting that the da is withholding evidence, most notibly the video evidence, and since it was not provided, perhaps it did not exist. It is not to be found today. We need to be more diligent in capturing the news that leaks out. before it is scrubbed! This will be another sealed case, as it is already apparent.

  9. Patrick, in order to argue that the oppressed will never rise up, you have to ignore world history, which American history largely does. Perhaps the major historical event of the 20th century is the de-colonization of the developing non-White countries. They threw off White Western oppression which was preventing them from industrializing.

    Nor was this limited to non-White countries. Ireland rebelled against England during the first world war, the shooting of the revolutionaries of the 1916 rise enraging the entire Irish population. They had previously endured centuries of homicidal privation, the Irish Famine largely being a form of genocide.

    James provided a source a while back which revealed that the Irish were enslaved and sent to the American colonies in the 16th century, just as the Africans were in later centuries. I looked in 4 or 5 Irish histories and some American journalism about the Irish in America, and no mention was made of it. Whether this was because historical writing was largely dominated by historians of English origin I couldn’t say.

    The Irish people–there are only 5 million or so in Ireland– now have a standard of living comparable to the English. If Jesus said that the we will always have the poor with us–and we only have the word of fallible human sources for this- He was wrong. As you are. But your writing is very stimulating, possibly because you emotionally identify with primitive religion against the views of biblical scholars. And I certainly am not saying that everything you know is wrong, just the most important things.

    And I agree with you that what we need in the USA, and the world, is a spiritual revitalization. The American lipservice religion– God is Love but business is business– is totally inadequate, not to say immoral. It has led to the current gangster ideology of the plutocracy under the Terror War. The major political movements in the USA, from John Brown to Martin Luther King, were led by spiritual leaders. Secular humanism has been an historical failure, and its time is up; what we need now is a spiritual humanism.

    1. I see your point, Mark. I completely forgot that your so-called “non-white” former colonies are all flourishing exemplars, where the noble peasant threw off his shackles and today lives a life of wealth, education and dignity. Damn, how could I have overlooked that!

      But it does bring to mind a whole ‘nother category of countries that in the same period found the noble, what did you call him, ah yes, “oppressed” throwing off the savage yoke and rising to glorious, lovely, dignity. The very memory of the Soviet gulag simply warms the heart, doesn’t it? Not to mention the workers’ paradises of North Korea, Cambodia, and Vietnam. What an ass I am, to have such a blinkered, America-centric perspective, when the whole world is awash in examples of the lowly man eliminating the dastardly oppression of the overlord!

      Oh, my. And a mere 90 miles away we have the veritable Heaven on earth for the common man, Cuba. And it never entered my racist mind. Well, that’s racism for you.

      And you know what, now that I’m in repentance mode: I must confess that never for an instant believed there actually was an “Arab Spring.” Can you believe my idiocy, Mark?

      Yes, the globe is simply seething with happy countries stocked with healthy, wealthy former peasants. If only we unhappy, benighted, racists in America had a news media that reported on it. I know, you’ll tell me that the opening segment of the Eddie Murphy movie Coming to America depicts the REAL Africa, Mark, and again, I simply forgot. Did I already admit I’m an ass?


      Now, back here in the real world, we know that the great empires did not dissolve because the noble peasantry rose up and overthrew the overlord, almost simultaneously, everywhere. We know that the elites whip up the mob by making them think that it is they who came up with the idea and that the dictatorship to come will be run by the proletariat, for the benefit of the proletariat, and boy-oh-boy won’t life be fantastic! And it’s even worse after the mob “wins.” But next time, they are assured, after a few horrendous decades, boy-oh-boy, it will really work! The BIG MAN won’t even exist anymore!

      You can choose to believe that the Bible is not the creator of the universe speaking directly to you. He does not compel you, He only asks you to trust Him when He says that He loves you, and wants you to know the truth. And the sad truth is that the Bible accurately describes future history, and it is VERY unpleasant before it becomes very nice indeed.

      We WILL be forced to endure a world government, world currency, and diabolical world religion. The Bible can be trusted even if you do not trust it.

      The fact is, the elite have dozens of Deep Underground Military Bases, cities, actually, connected by high tech, very fast rail lines. They have Tesla technology, which is free energy, perfected. They have complete control over the media and the education system. They are systematically poisoning the food, the water and the air to sicken us and make us dumb, and they have poisonous vaccines and poisonous medicines to “treat” the conditions they are creating for us to endure. They may make the mob think it is rising up to throw them off every now and then, to keep them from noticing what is being done to craft the future the poor slobs who make up the mob will have no part in, outside of slavery. Meanwhile, they watch as we sicken and die. But one thing is certain. They will not lose until the Lord returns.


  10. I confess, Patrick, that I was utterly astounded by your response. In AMERICAN THEOCRACY Kevin Phillips states in 2004 that 60 MILLION pieces of literature and videos were sold from the LEFT BEHIND sequence. He quotes the journalist Bill Moyers, himself an ordained minister: “one of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe…..”

    My own values are quite simple. We have inherited a society, with all its perversions and pathologies, where we live longer, better, and more enriched lives than our ancestors who helped fashion it. It is consequently our obligation to them and our children to make our descendant’s lives better than our own. This will be resisted by the powerful and their delusive and pathological ideologies to prevent it, but our ancestors did it, and so can we. It is simply part of being a decent person.

    1. Quite an inspiring 2nd. paragraph ! May I c&p to a fb patriot site I belong to ? I’ll avoid your name if you wish, but do not want to take credit for originality.

    2. Yes, and all those items were bought by all those millions of people because they’re stupid, I’m guessing. And Bill Moyers, being too polite to say the word, certifies it. He’s an authority, don’t you know. (Personally, I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the correct time of day.)

  11. Sure, Bonnie, use anything you want, with or without attribution. I write in these blogs, and this is by far the best one, to clarify what I think, and to get comment from others.

    People are not stupid, Patrick, we’re crazy. Rather, we are stupid BECAUSE we are crazy. Power throughout history has deluded the people ideologically in order to rule. The media and other truth organs, with the advent of television, has initiated the Orwellian delusion of the Terror War, which is merely an exaggeration of the ideological fraud that power has always used to rule.

    For pedagogical purposes, Patrick, I will assume that you are not a disinfo agent of some kind, although it would not be surprising for James to be harassed in this way. But I have personal experience with people firmly committed to anti-people ideological lunacy who in their personal lives are quite decent. A recent attorney general under Bush anointed himself with cooking oil on attaining office, for the edification of us ‘poor slobs of the mob’ as you refer to us.

    1. “The media and other truth organs, with the advent of television, has initiated the Orwellian delusion of the Terror War, which is merely an exaggeration of the ideological fraud that power has always used to rule.”

      A truer word has rarely been spoken.

      ” I will assume that you are not a disinfo agent of some kind”

      Much appreciated.

      “although it would not be surprising for James to be harassed in this way”

      How is my point of view in anyway an act of “harassment”? Please enlighten me.

      “But I have personal experience with people firmly committed to anti-people ideological lunacy who in their personal lives are quite decent.”

      Wow. Must be agonizing. I’ve never met such a person, so far as I can ascertain, and hope never to do so. How did you interact with them. I’m thinking you must have met Josef Mengele and some of his “Paperclip” pals. Awesome. Please tell the story.

      “A recent attorney general under Bush anointed himself with cooking oil on attaining office, for the edification of us ‘poor slobs of the mob’ as you refer to us.”

      Now, this part is tougher to untie. I have no idea what this cooking oil business is supposed to tell us, or why it should be of any interest. But it’s clear that you don’t know what the meaning of mob psychology is, or you would not have imagined that I included you in the mob, which is alternately called “the mass.” No one who spends time here constitutes the mob. By definition. And mobs are not continuous –mobs only come into being when the elites need a fake transformation of society.

      But it’s very strange. Mobs, by definition can’t be edified. When the mass psychology is in play, the group mind takes over, and the individual ceases to exist for a period. The best example is the French Revolution. If you tried to edify anyone there, you’d be murdered on the spot. You can look it up.

  12. You are a deluded snob, Patrick. When Eugene Debs was being sentenced for opposing world war 1, he stated in open court, while tongues of fire danced upon his shoulders:

    “Your Honor, years ago …I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth…While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

  13. You all need to get over yourselves! This blog is not about who is right about interpreting history lessons, or disparaging each other’s character, it is about determining the truth of what is happening now. While I choose to skim over most of your malarkey, from what I have witnessed, suspect you are both trolls with a mission of undermining the truth spoken here!

  14. Kathy, you are the fourth different person to intervene in a political-moral dispute I have been involved in in various blogs or public discussions, to maintain that it was illegitimate. Apparently there is a strain in American political culture that truthers have identified with who conceive it as perfectly legitimate to censor these disputes as being outside the legitimate boundary of discussion. No discourse or discussion of politics or religion is legitimate.

    Tocqueville thought so too. Alexis de Tocqueville came over from France nearly two centuries ago to try to make Democracy safe for aristocracy. He wrote a famous book DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA in 1835 which scholars have been quoting ever since. Please excuse me, Kathy, I am about to quote some more historical malarkey; you can just skip this part:

    “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. The majority raises formidable barrios around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.”

    Patrick and I come from polemical traditions, his religious and mine political, where vigorous debate is quite routine. But this appears to be disturbing to a grouping of Americans who consider legitimate to intervene to stop it. I strongly disagree with Patrick, but it would never occur to me to censor what he says; he has a right to say what he pleases. You apparently don’t think so.

    This is a vivid illustration of how we have gotten to a point where the media, on the Proclaimed grounds of telling us the news, operatively excludes it. Apparently there is a grouping of Americans who think this legitimate, and want to avoid discussion that threatens their conventional values. This would make throwing unconventional truths down the memory hole as acceptable.

    So the media functions, to some extent, by giving the American people what they want. This would strengthen Patrick’s argument. Unconventional truth, including moral-political discussion, verges on what Orwell called ‘cirmethink.’ In my opinion, which I’m afraid is historical, this is a greater danger to American political development than Patrick’s opinion, since Patrick obviously likes polemical discussion. You apparently don’t, Kathy, and you are not alone in that regard.

    It is impossible to change the mind of a person who simple discards all truth outside the media truth. So I suppose the first effort would be to get the American people interested in ideas, in historical malarkey as you call it. This can be done, in my opinion, by creating a truth weapon that conceives historical tendencies in a simple concise way, and then repeating it a few hundred thousand times. Eventually the simple truths will combat the simple untruths of the media, and will cease to make the American people uncomfortable.

  15. I call them the way I see them, Patrick. You are more politically sophisticated than most Americans, so you have a greater obligation to see reality steady and see it whole. Referring to most persons as Poor Slobs of the Mob is not a viable moral-political approach. I seem to recall that the Bible refers to the meanest of the earth’ differently. And its simply delusive to consider most persons this way. People are very creative.

    Did you know that every year millions of little children learn to speak Chinese WITHOUT GOING TO SCHOOL! Amazing! And this has been going on not just recently but for centuries? For five millennia say the Chinese without much exaggeration. Incredible!

    Are you fluent in Chinese, Patrick? No? Me neither. So those kids know a lot we don’t know, including the culture that the language opens up. Know Russian, Patrick? Arabic? Lots of people do. Poor slobs of the Mob? Most of the earth’s people know al lot we don’t know.

    According to Goethe, we all see reality in the light of our own superiorities. We consider our superiorities better than other peoples.’ Isn’t this a form of delusion, albeit widespread. Because of my tact, I don’t mention snobbism.

    If you consider people as mere slobs, it’s no wonder you are cynical about their transforming political reality. But they have throughout history, and just the past weeks the world’s people, including the American people, prevented a new war. Poor slobs of the Mob? I don’t think so.

    Consider the problem James has, telling people truths they don’t want to hear. As a professional specialist, he knows truths that he can’t say, and what he does say is astonishing. But a fellow truth revealer, Snowden, who had a similar problem, is now shortlisted for a major EU prize.

    James is not a political mass murderer so that appears to rule him out for a Nobel Peace Prize. But there are other prizes as well that can legitimate his trothing, and protect his back. Who do you think would most support him for one, the Educated classes, the upper 10% or the people?

    And this support can even trickle down to the universities. David Ray Griffin, who wrote 5 or 10 books on the 9/11 fraud, was recently honored by his colleagues at a California university. I only talked to him once at a conference we attended, but it is obvious he is a decent honest courageous man. Well, so is James, and as the people understand what he is saying, it will constrain the academy. But it all starts with the people, bottom up not top down. Which precludes thinking of the general person of the general population as a Poor Slob of the Mob.

    It is merely a question of de-Educating her from the duplicity of the power system which has indoctrinated the stigmatizing, disregarding, and marginalizing of people in order to legitimate anti-people power.

    1. The problem with what you are saying here, Mark, outside of the fact that it is a ridiculous, shabby caricature of what I wrote, is that you confuse the state of being an individual with the completely different state of members of a group.

      Individuals that have become part of a mob do things they would never do as individuals. This is a fact of human psychology, and it can be demonstrated all throughout history. It is the mass psychology of the mob that enabled formerly friendly neighbors in Rwanda to hack each other to death with machetes, to offer a recent example. It is meaningless to assess the innate intelligence of a given blood-soaked murderer, when examining the behavior of a mob; when the mob disbands, and he goes back to his practice as a physician or whatever, he will not really be able to explain his temporary insanity, or even remember why he did it.

      People who think that there is such a thing as “people power,” benign “movements” that transform societies for the better, have to ignore the fact that the social order that replaces the one the mob was raised up to eliminate is always dominated by a new elite, and the so-called “people” are just as bad off, if not worse.

      This whole discussion began when I reminded the readers here of Orwell’s cycles of history. The fact that the “middle” need to dupe the “low” into revolting when the time comes to replace the “high,” and they do so because the “middle” tell them that they will be the ones calling the shots in the aftermath, only tells us that the leaders of social revolutions need to understand mass psychology to get the job done.

      1. Hi Patrcik, Hi Mark,

        Not that I want to get into it with either of you, but the exchange is quite interesting, and both of you have what to my mind are reasonably well thought out positions – and no, I’m not being condescending or anywise uppity. I’m just saying.

        But I could not resist, and so please do easy on me after I retreat back out of the ring. For I’m old and frail, and I fancy that I am not as spry as either of you, neither in mind nor body.

        But if I may:

        Revolutions have certainly happened down through the ages. Sometimes the fight originated from below – it was bottom-up. Sometimes it originated from the middle (both the bottom and the top were betrayed) – it was top-down, or rather, middle-down. Sometimes it originated from the very top, either to forestall rebellions from below or because the top fractured into fractious factions – it was top-down.
        And what of the outcomes? Sometimes the bottom came out on top. Sometimes it was the middle. Sometimes it was the top. Sometimes it was one huge compromise. The contending parties gambled on the future. Either the result was a society re-constituted on a new basis of social and economic relations, or the old order itself was reconstituted. And sometimes things fell entirely apart for all of the contending sides, with everything either destroyed or left in a state of irremediable collapse.

        No one as yet knows how to make a revolution. They do happen. And no one can ever predict how they will turn out. Revolution is a gamble. But it is a gamble that sometimes has to be made if life if ever to become tolerable again.

        But I fear I’ve broken a promise I made, which was never again to post off-topic, and that is as much of an apology as I am going to make.

        1. This is not off-topic, Norm. The thread is about a 1984 parody, signed by “WS”. How does the world get to Orwell’s dystopia?

          The graphic James gave the post says Ingsoc: English Socialism, the system Winston Smith rebels against. It was brought into existence by a “revolution.” Life for the people of England, or as it was renamed, “Airstrip One” (if I remember correctly) was far, far worse than it was before Ingsoc came into being.

          This is the case, I contend, in each and every so-called “revolution.” Argentina, at the turn of the 20th century, was tied with the United States for the second spot as the most prosperous country in the world. Envy was allowed to utterly ruin that country, in the name of a socialist revolution. The argument was, we’re so rich, we can afford to “spread the wealth around.” Well, they ain’t rich no more. Because socialism destroys the process of wealth creation.

          If you can name a single “revolution” that replaced the former order with one where there was no ruling elite, and the people were as happy and free as Hobbits in the Shire, I’d love to know about it. Please tell. If you can name a single “revolution” that was spontaneous, and not guided by a set of intellectuals who were bent on replacing the elite in charge, I’d love to know about it. Please tell.

          If Orwell was wrong, I’d like to see some proof.

          James’ hilarious demonstration of the sad state we’ve descended to, I originally argued, tells us that the current ruling elite has the conceit that they have cracked the code Orwell’s Inner Party did; they believe that there need never be another so-called “revolution”; that they will henceforth retain permanent power. They have stopped the cycle of history. To make my case, I argued that there is a pattern of all previous replacements of the High by the Middle. If you can find one, as you seem to think you can, that does not fit that pattern, please reveal it.

          Mark mistakenly thinks the great empires all suddenly “decolonized” because the noble masses spontaneously rose up and achieved freedom. Nonsense. Life in those former colonies is worse for those poor slobs than it was before.

          Likewise, with communism. Any poor fool that became part if the various mobs that ushered in communist regimes could only wish that his mind had not succumbed to the weird alchemy of of mass psychology, and that he instead would have has the presence of mind to flee the country before Lenin or Mao or Castro or Pol Pot could stop them from getting out.

          Your contribution, in my opinion, is welcome, Norm.

  16. Hi Patrick,

    You write: “If you can find one, as you seem to think you can, that does not fit that pattern, please reveal it.”

    First, ‘revolution’ is a process. It does not happen all at once. So, for example, I think that over a period of about 300 years, between the Middle Ages and, say, the early 19th Century, something happened, something changed, and it was the result of contentions that were more or less sustained. The transition was certainly made between Feudalism (even if today remnants of that era are still with us today) and what nowadays goes by the name of Capitalism. Revolution isn’t a one shot explosion, however long the violence of that one outburst may be, and the process often becomes attenuated down to a course of ‘negotiations’ that on the surface assume the guise of something stable and peaceful, but that remains a thrust and parry between ‘progressive’ elements and/or conservative and reactionary elements. If we can both agree to this admittedly schematic or sketchy or abstract image of what a ‘revolution’ entails, then I’ll make the following recommendation, because I think E.P. Thompson, as a scholar, does a very good job of eliciting ‘proof’ that the grubby elements of society are every bit as capable of recognizing what their true interests are and of pushing these onto the historical stage:

    E.P. Thompson, “The Making of the English Working Class.”

    Cheap paperback editions abound.

    And let me remind you that we ourselves, or if we are not to include you in this category, then many who post here are merely ‘ordinary’ folk. That it is at least the manner in which I see myself. Insight is not a faculty that is the exclusive property of the upper classes nor of the psychopaths among us. It is, in my opinion, fairly widely distributed if manageably suppressed by ‘the powers that should not be.’

    Are the shmucks capable? I think they are. On this matter, I think that Thompson provides ample proof and examples. If you get the chance, read him. It may perhaps be an education.

    And thank you for inviting me into the discussion.

    1. I do not presume to have perfect knowledge of history, Norm (and I don’t accuse you of saying that I claim as much, so don’t think i’m being hard on you).

      These categories, these means of social transformation, are infinitely interesting to examine. But if you propose to use the word “revolution” to describe the 500 years between the end of the middle ages and now, well, we’ve lost common ground in language.

      I’m talking about peasants and/or proletarians rising up and then settling down, in episodes that last a few years at most. I contend that these are not ever organic or spontaneous, and that they are always controlled by intellectuals, to further a purpose that will not benefit said peasants/proletarians. W.S.’s notion that the only hope is with the proles is false, as he learned when he finally chatted with one in the book.

      I would not call the common man shmucks, except in jocularity; when I call the masses “poor slobs,” I mean it affectionately. It is an offhand, throw-away way of talking that is meant to make you laugh. Everyone, however lowly his estate, is entitled to the presumption of dignity, because in truth, the greatest of the saints will never be recognized this side of Heaven, because they were invisible to the larger society. And the most admired of the elite are often the most unworthy of our esteem.

      Assuming you are using the term affectionately, I heartily agree with you that they are capable. And the fact is that the emergence of the English middle class out of the lowliest of the low was one of the great boons humanity has ever experienced. I love Tolkien, and I’m convinced that that’s what the Hobbits are meant to represent in his world. He loved the nobility inherent in the common man, given Biblical morality to structure life, and I do too.

      If my sassy way of referencing the common man has been offensive, I’m sorry I offended. One thing about a forum like this is it’s not book-length. Necessarily, we (most of us, at least) use shorthand, assuming we’ll be understood. I hope that clears matters up.

  17. Hi Patrick,
    You write: “If my sassy way of referencing the common man has been offensive, I’m sorry I offended. One thing about a forum like this is it’s not book-length. Necessarily, we (most of us, at least) use shorthand, assuming we’ll be understood. I hope that clears matters up.”

    No, I was not offended, and rightly guessed at your intention. Still, I appreciate the clarification.

    When I wrote that bit that started off with “…let me remind you that . . . ,” I merely wanted to underscore that most of the people who post here are ‘regular folk’ and are yet quite aware and articulate. To my mind, what we have at hand is a perfect example of how ‘communication and conversation’ can take root in any strata of society and then take a rather radical turn if the intent of that ‘communication and conversation’ is to arrive at a better understanding of ourselves and the social context in which we live.

    But I think we are really not that far apart in our thinking if not exactly at the same place. If to your mind revolution is “… peasants and/or proletarians rising up and then settling down, in episodes that last a few years at most,” then I am inclined to agree that not much is likely to have changed the day after the blowout. And yes, genuine unrest among the general population has time and again been coopted by networks of so called leaders who once in power simply go their own way, regardless of the aspirations or designs of the greater number.

    So yes, granted, the greater numbers of mankind have yet to figure out how to come together and take power for the greater good or the benefit of the majority.

    But just because it hasn’t happened yet, does not mean that it can’t. The European bourgeoisie was eventually successful in undermining what from its viewpoint was the arbitrary and illegitimate rule of the Feudal aristocracy. That was ‘revolutionary’ when the attempt finally succeeded. It was the genuine toppling of a power structure to replace it with the rule of mercantile/industrial capital (although it is true, it seems as if in the last 30 years there has been a bit of a counter-revolution, a resurgence of neo-feudalism in the guise of the oligarchy of finance). It did not take only a few years but hundreds, and neither was it accomplished without the lower classes, most of whom were probably blind to their cooptation in the service of their bourgeois masters.

    So I, too, do not believe in the revolution that topples entrenched power at one go. And if ever that toppling happens, I fear we are as yet a long way off. And yet, who can predict these things, really.

    But I do believe that a series of battles wagered over time and the dissemination of awareness can eventually come together to overthrow an established order. The succession of Feudalism by Capitalism proves it. But that something ‘can’ happen does not guarantee that it will. And if it ever does, the successful overthrow will likely come late rather than early in the attempt(s).

    The current regime is from the viewpoint of the many arbitrary and illegitimate. As more people come to realize this over time – as we ourselves have – the more likely it is that the regime will be taken down. It will not, if it happens at all, occur all at once. Attempts have already been made. More will be made. There is no guarantee to any outcome. But if truth is radical and if truth spreads – and truth is radical and it can spread – radical things become possible if not necessarily actual. Otherwise, what are we doing here?

  18. Right, Norm. And we are involved in it, as a human obligation. Just as Henrich Heine wanted to be remembered, as a good soldier in humanity’s long and torturous war for human liberation.

Leave a Reply