THE DAILY BELL: US CITIZENS’ FAITH IN US FEDERAL GOVT AT ALL ...February 6, 2013
There are two articles that appeared in The Daily Bell and both on the same day. One concerns a recent poll of American citizens and the other, the beginning of a military draw down:
The Daily Bell is, in my opinion, correct in this assessment:
From our point of view, it is not, of course. It is a manifestation of a larger disaffection that has been exacerbated by what we call the Internet Reformation. The Internet allows people to understand their world in ways they didn't before and tends to put discontent into a larger perspective.
Whereas before, people might have been more apt to blame themselves or their circumstances for their troubles, now they may see their dilemmas as part of a larger systemic issue. But the nation's media gatekeepers like PBS continue to focus on such issues as they have in the past, mainly through the lens of the two-party political system. This in a sense trivializes the growing discontent and misinterprets it, as well.
The frustration is not really about gridlock; it is not about the Dummycrooks vs Republithugs any more (or for that matter, between Labour and Tories, Christian Democrats vs Social Democrats, or any other fill-in-the blank name for the one party oligrachical rule system in place now). It is really about the complete unresponsiveness of government to the public good, and about its complete subservience to corporate and financial interests, whether it be on the fascist left or fascist right, it remains government of the oligarchy and for the oligarchy.
The Bell's analysis I believe should be read in the context of its accompanying article (perhaps as they intended):
Of course, the idea of Germany replacing the US as the West's military policeman is unpractical from any viewpoint, not the least of which the Germans would not want the role (and who can blame them?) and neither would anyone else (and who could blame them either?).
The Daily Bell is correct about the real reasons for the frustration of American citizens toward their government, and that frustration lies in these paragraphs in the second article:
The US military-industrial complex is the most powerful influencer in US society, the center of a power nexus that neither political party is apt to significantly challenge. In fact, one of the biggest changes in the US political economy is the rise of gray and black ops Intel agencies.
There are some 16 (probably many more) separate Intel organizations operating within or around the orbit of Homeland Security. The war on terror has given the military and intelligence community a virtual blank check and they have cashed it over and over.
This is only to be expected as US Intel agencies and military departments are essentially run by a larger power elite that stands behind the US government and uses US power to build world government. The policies of the US government – when it comes to the CIA and Pentagon – have little to do with US "national interest" and much to do with the goal of global governance.
One can argue that the US – along with allies – fought World War I and World War II to help the power elite create the fundamentals of world government (the UN, World Bank and IMF ). These are now being utilized to pacify areas of the world that are not yet amenable to the creation of a brave, new – and centralized – world.
What is also true is that public patience is waning when it comes to US military adventurism.
In other words, if the American government seems unresponsive to the American people, that's because it is. It is a tool in a much larger agenda. But as Russia and China have warned, such a unipolar world is not going to happen, not on their watch anyway.
But the real reality is this:
Observing the Middle East and Africa, we see a constant ratcheting up of the war on terror; the rhetoric may feature US drawdowns but the reality behind the scenes is that the powers-that-be are working diligently to create more "hot spots" that need US and NATO tending.
Conclusion: US rhetoric is not matched by the reality of "boots on the ground." Positioning the US as a waning power may merely be a way of further entangling Europe in expanding military adventurism.
Again, we would agree with the Daily Bell here, but would also suggest, that the strategy is a precarious, risky one, for like all such strategies, it is only good as long as there can be a modicum of popular support for it. Which in Europe is always problematical, and in America, is rapidly eroding. This will make the financial oligarchs increasingly dangerous, and reckless. They could, of course, attempt to secure their home base for such military adventurism by outright impositions of tyranny. But that, too, is risky, since there is a growing awareness of and reaction against them. Clamping down, risks revolt, and revolt is something difficult if not impossible to control. The other alternative is a large false flag event, one to justify new imperial adventures, or new measures of repression, or both. And the trouble, once again, is that that playbook and tactic is now so obvious that a replay itself is increasingly risky.
The previous solution in history, when the oligarchs faced similar challenges, was to internally divide western civilization into religious camps, leaving that of England to play an uneasy Via Media Anglicana game, while the continental oligarchy transferred to England the basis of their fortune and power. Maybe, that too, is part of the scenario...
See you on the flip side.