Divine Corruption and Networked Democracy
human being
human at electronetwork.org
Sat Jul 19 17:20:13 CEST 2003
Questions circulating in the brain's circuit for a
good ten hours, is one at liberty to say what they
truly think, how does one calculate what is safe to
say, regarding larger theses about what is going on?
Risk assessment of thresholds, significant maybe only
to the paranoid, walking the line even if it is invisible.
Here's a sketch of an idea, without many details...
What does one do when hearing 'alarms' from the
.US Administration about defectors, imminent threats,
nuclear programs, when for Iraq these are the very
same arguments now discredited by political agendas?
Identical is the pattern with stories out of North Korea,
and Iran, from the Bush Administration, even Syria it
is guessed, though that report has been held back.
What if basic information cannot be trusted even at
the level of government decision making, and that
there is no accountability within a bureaucracy that
has the capability to both engage in nuclear warfare?
And, in addition, to note that nuclear threats are real,
not simply fictions but that it is a leveraging tool that
may need to be addressed, yet this may no longer be
possible given internal corruption of basic processes?
The reason Russia and China are relevant for nuclear
standoff crises now underway is, one is to imagine, they
have connections with communist histories and also
special relationships and their own internal leverages,
such that should a smaller country throw the world out
of balance even further, it would damage larger systems
of which these countries are a part, and would in effect
damage their stability, thus best interest may be shared
to not have rogue nuclear exchanges as a new politic.
What good would making the Korean Peninsula into a
nuclear wasteland be, for China, the USA, North Korea?
If one considers what happened with SARs and the
technology industry, related or not, imagine what would
happen to many industries, (steel, salvage of materials,
semiconductors, technology, light-manufacturing, food,
investment) if parts of the Asia were to be 'smoked-out'
as Bush might say in his parlance? For instance, if the
North Korean leader were to strike at Japan, (or even
to Australia, additionally, without considering striking
the US even), much of the technology industry would
be placed into a curious relationship, the US' lack of
strategic position would exacerbate nuclear options
(no troops to send), and what is going on today with
3.5G Cellphones and robots and management ideas
and other innovations, in manufacturing, in industrial
design, in cultural awakening to many aspects merging
in the daily experience, these could go up in a flash,
and for what? Catapulting North Korea to dominance?
If one considers the value of the US' and Japan's and
Australia's promise, much of it might lie in integrating
patterns of change, but having some control. If China
were to put its tentacles deep into the Korean Nuclear
Issues, in addition to Russia, because surely they have
more relations than most countries in 'the West' (openly,
it is guessed, such as with energy, politics, investment)
it could enable a place of transition, transformation of
the different systems, from without and within. So too,
if China and Russia were to take the world stage in a
way that is not militaristic (like the .US right now) and,
were to peacefully bring assurances, their standing
would, it seems, be critical to holding chaos at bay.
This is not to say it is to only help the .US, but if the
idea of self-interest is included it is clearly in their
own interest to not lose the value of their region due
to not acting beyond the confines of the Cold War, or
at least to keep the boundaries of nuclear use within
a highly-bureaucratic checks-and-balances and not
on the trigger-switch of unbalanced decision makers.
The .US is in a mirror-image situation and thus this
raises the stakes immensely, if something happens.
Germany and the EU are important too, of course, but
possibly moreso to performing similar functions for a
.US depolarization of the world situation, by requiring
a submission to world pressure to conform to United
Nations laws, rules, and regulations, and then to be
engaged in this manner. This is not to say that this
will happen, unless somehow Colin Powell actually
somehow got into the driver's seat. Though until the
Bush Administration is likewise put into checkmate
with unrestricted movements, it is equally dangerous
to a nuclear North Korea for the stability of the world.
Concerned about treason, about sedition and such,
the reason I write this, and am writing as carefully as
is possible (for my own limited skills) is that there is
a premise that this is based on, that there are rogue
elements in the decision making process, which have
shut out the democratic process, or this is a condition,
and there are people driving decisions which are not
connected with any representation or even checks or
balances on basic sanity. That is to say, how could
such a situation, if it really were to exist, be dealt with?
It is strange, as the mass media is like a tide, it will
take a story and finally open it up and carry it to a
place where it gains some publicness, and then by
some force of gravity from some distant (political)
mass of influence, this story will recede and then it
will be beyond recovery, except as leftover detritus.
The political spin on the '16 words' in the WMD part
of the National Intelligence Estimate and the State
of the Union speech are focused on. VP Cheney's
role in all of this has been fingered. But still in most
all analyses, these are unconnected from prior, and
unreported and undocumented by the mass media,
events such as 9/11, Enron, .US Energy Task Force.
There is a clear arc of connection now visible between
the aims of Enron and US energy policies, even with
plans for global energy markets, today with war plans
eluded to in Energy Task Force documents* and all
of these same traits, like the defectors, imminent-
threats, are held in common across vast areas all of
which involve Vice President Cheney at the helm of
the decision making, if it is the Iraq War, if it is the
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Uranium and
Nuclear claims-- Cheney is always at the center of
the puzzle, or there is plenty that suggests this, such
as Iraq's oil being a focus of the Energy Task Force
in early 2001 and the refusal to release any of the
information about these private meetings (with Ken
Lay of Enron, invovled, it is speculated)-- for if they
did release this information instead of going to the
absolutely extraordinary lengths to cover up their
strategic planning, it may have indicated plans for
Iraq and the Middle Eastern oil revenues as part of
a business plan, not unrelated to other devices that
helped such thinking, such as a populist chorus of
'Empire' singers, media pundits who took on the role
which had another curious arc through Italy, as with
the Niger documents. So too, with Israel's Sharon
knowing .US battle planning before the .US itself,
it may be similar to that 'ancient Chistrian artifact'
that 'just appeared' in Israel, related to one of the
apostles at an opportune time for mysticism to work
its magic on what has been portrayed as an infallible
.US President. It turns out that artifact was fake, after
the fact, it cracked in transit and was a forgery. Sound
familiar? In any case, it brings up an issue of control.
What if, in some strange twist of fate, there was an
actual rogue element which took over control of the
.US government, and it spread its power base over
the nation and world, with operatives in every city,
in major organizations, in industries, public offices.
How would someone, individuals alone or together,
ever be able to deal with an entrenched takeover of
their democratic power structure by an authoritarian
and dangerous element, which hijacked the state?
Of Course-- THIS IS NOT THE CASE, most certainly.
But what if it were possible, and indeed did happen?
To speak or act out, numbers matter, but even more,
information is key to controlling the situation and this
is why controlling access and publication and 'safety'
via these modes of communication can act like points
of pressure, to maintain control over interpretation and
perception of the realities of what is underway/going on.
Say someone wants to write something very specific,
about people in town, about types of vehicles they are
seeing, about experiences they have had or noticed.
If they say something too far out of line with others, it
may risk their position and actual safety. Whereas if
more are talking, it is generally safer to discuss what is
going on in common, to raise issue with today's events.
First assumption is possibly that no one can be trusted
in any static sense, only partially, if at all. That is, to be
in an organized resistance or any type of movement, or
to purport an ideological position which is a threat in a
way of political power, through the massiveness of the
group, that it is likely anything done is already known
in advance, compromised, and even used to box-in
any initiatives or people, to shape or even use these
systems for their dual-purpose as cover, to exacerbate
the current conditions by feeding the illusions of change
through bureaucracy, thereby neutralizing the threat.
This would lead to the assumption that to work against
such a takeover of the democratic process would also
require the actions of diverse individuals, working in
groups and alone, in many ways, but not a bureaucracy.
In this sense, there is no 'here' there, but it is temporary,
a network of connections. There is no host for such a
parasite to take over, unless it is the person, who goes
into the realm of trust or no trust. Some people may be
especially targeted for control, it would seem, those who
are nodes in various networks, and to find out what is
going on in larger networks would only require breaking
into the human-routers and even futzing with internal
wiring to see if they can do the bidding of the powers
that be. This means, there is no direct communication
but there is recognition that certain principles are being
shared by a group of people who may begin to work
together at various times, such as with the WMD issue
in relation to its other issues, though this is not as clear
as it should be to the general public because networks
of shared interests have yet to self-configure and realize
that when information is controlled, so is their agenda
to retake democracy, reestablish accountability, and
reinstitute public checks and balances. People already
exist in all the organizations, those who know enough
to be able to choose positions, but need not voice it in
the open, but instead to understand where others stand
in relation to them, who is closest to the perpetrators of
this negligence, to remember, and to consider options.
There are many more who are around who believe in
basic ideals of the many, than those who may hijack
democratic processes for the few. Or, this is another
of the assumptions, that people exist in every sector
who are ready and willing to take back the initiative of
guiding the .US to its best realizable state, of necessity.
If one imagines that even the spooks and spies and
military brass have major conflicts with the takeover
of the democratic system, and these people too are
speaking out, acting out, dissenting en masse from
very diverse sectors, it indicates a widespread and
uncontained disillusion which might be happening if
a rogue element has indeed taken control of things.
For instance, let's imagine that someone is going to
go out on a limb and start talking about a hypothesis
of this rogue element, not connected to WMD and a
Uranium Claim in the .US Administration's very own
highly-controlled rhetoric, but in a network of insipid
information which brings reason to bear on decisions
well preceding this, such as with the role of Enron in
the Presidential Elections, the California Power Crisis,
the Energy Task Force, its connection to both nuclear
industries, an Iraqi oil-grab, and false-nuclear claims,
and negligence on 9/11 to the present day to better
prepare the defense of the .US and its improvement
while protecting the core of constitutional governance?
Let's say the rogue elements may get devious. Let's
also imagine that with all the dissenters, there are a
few if not several diverse, very deep and old networks
which act like personal countermeasures in times like
these, where any action not only has reactions, but can
be played 'outside the box' of the residing authoritarian
power-structure, and thus can shape any actions to in
effect change their outcome. Meaning, if some rogue
element were going to do something dubious within
or outside of the government, but through bureaucracy
that by now, the government (public and private) has
most likely panoptically begun surveilling itself, like
a reality-show-of-the-state. By being in an organized,
highly confined setting, and working with power it can
try to do devious things to various people, but it is also
in a realm that can be closely watched by others with
possibly more democratic intentions, protecting core
functioning in a period of criminal internal pillage.
In short, everyone becomes an eye, in some way, for
various networks they interact in. Not that this is true
literally, but that should there be a rogue government
that people would be needed to understand this and
who better than those nearest it? And, evidence exists
to suggest that this is indeed a possibility for countering
grievances that cannot be currently dealt with by an
ineffectual representation due to its political corruption.
In that sense, it is a civil war, internal but also, civilian,
it is to know who is supporting the rogues and how the
elements function together, as one world-class system.
They have chunks of the intelligence community, parts
of private sectors, whole classes of tax-fundamentalists,
certain religious and other ideological organizations.
They are centered around a charismatic leader, named
The President, let us say, for sake of needing an example.
Not George W. Bush, of course, as this is hypothetical.
The President would then need to have some level of
protection from critics, and also provide political cover
for a rogue agenda. By design, religion can perform a
lot of things for a lot of people without the need for a
public reasoning, and can also lift believers into areas
that do not accept fallibility in their leadership. Thus, the
defense of such an organization may be to have a leader
who is infallible, who is unquestioning in their judgment
and also who is in total control of their image, word, and
presentation of their self-representation (mirror image
of the self, as it would like to be seen by others looking).
Let's say this is not the actual power structure, that it is
instead political cover for an agenda run by, say, the
Vice President, say, like Dick Cheney's position in the
current .US administration. If that were the case, one of
the strongest defenses would be to control information
both about the agenda, and to push this agenda in
various media, through the implicit assumption that
to not do so is to be a sitting duck in a competitive and
reward-punishment model for relations with the rogue
elements. Countering anything that is official script is
basically sacrilege against the great leader, and it is
uncomfortable for any policy agendas undertaken. If
the rogue organization can contain the information,
and control it, that is, to be able to manage it, it can
limit any interpretations beyond those of its choosing.
Those who believe in democracy and the right to self-
determination by the public, even if it is not currently
being represented by the powers that be, can still use
the truth as a weapon. If they are a small number they
can, though, be picked off, one by one, or harassed
or intimidated, it is guessed. Though if they were to
work in networks, spontaneous, no communication
other than working on shared goals and the effects
of these common efforts realized, then it may be a
possibility to affect the control of information by the
opening of arguments and reasoning outside or
larger than that previously allowed by the control
of interpretation by these rogue elements. And to
hear others chime in with more information that is
contradictory to claims made by the infallible leader
would force a resolution of the idealism with realism
or fantasy with a straight-jacket and a locked room.
Let's say, just from writing something stupid, there
is some organized element on the local and also
the national and international level that would now
try to do something about such threats. Say, threaten
or try to manipulate the situation to their advantage.
Like a honeypot used to lure unsuspecting villains,
if the power structure were in a rogue constitution,
they may make themselves known. And in doing so
they may also blow their operational cover and their
network, providing a map back to those in power, in
addition to the route that such decisions are made by.
By overloading this system with information contrary
and also reasonably argued but for the reasons of
truth, and respect not abuse of power, then the use
of infallibility would be stretched to a breaking point,
at which point the web of lies would become its own
trap. Which may be happening, oddly enough, with
certain aspects of the current .US administration. It
is akin to a mosquito bug bite on the arm. One can
get one mosquito, smack it with one's hand and to
kill it before it bites into the skin to suck blood for it
to live. The great infallible leader can do the same
with information, as long as it is manageable. If the
leader were overwhelmed by mosquitos, it may be
swatting at one, while ten others are landing on the
skin to bite, and may hit another and another, but
would need to retreat in order to be safe. Yet this
would still require a position of susceptibility and
fallibility to such questions or contrary information
which may cause welts on skin and discomfort.
If this were compared to the Iraq War and WMD,
the forged Niger Uranium documents are one
bug. It is flying around the .US administration
and G.W. Bush has given it his best to swat at
it, while keeping a self-perception of infallibility.
This little mosquito is flying all over the place and
has a lot of people trying to swat at it. Now, media
tides have receded, so there are less mosquitos,
as there is an uncomfortable realm where it is not
clear how to proceed. So other mosquitos are now
popping up out of nowhere, if they are intelligence
people, if they are organizations, individuals, if
they are retired military, active duty soldiers, if
they are various countries representatives, if it
is the mother of a soldier killed months after the
war has ended- these are all questions that are
emanating from one event: Iraq. But, there are
other mosquitos, other truths, which are also to
be connected with the patterns of deception that
have come to the surface, which are in actuality
directly connected with these same techniques
used by what might be considered a corrupted
and subverted government: they include 9/11,
Enron, The Energy Task Force, and they all
have a focus on Vice President Dick Cheney.
If the .US Energy Task Force has any relation
to war in Iraq, which information seems to now
indicate it does, and also is tied into Ken Lay,
the number one supporter of Bush's campaign,
in addition to the California power crisis, and
the Enronomics which gamed stock markets in
much the same way as the government is now
being gamed--- then it may be that should these
mosquitos start to bite, in unison, on this infallible
leadership, that the connections, and networks
of people who can aid in this revealing of truth
and the unraveling of undemocratic despotic
power, could bite the charismatic leader too
many times that the strategy of control is to be
overwhelmed by chaos, of information, non-
violent but a constant and intense questioning
of the relations between events, facts, deeds.
That is, between .US policy and dead people.
If there is a fear, it is that the media reneges on
its new found responsibility to support democracy
and inquiry into matters of the state, however far
privatized and corrupted it may become, that it
has a responsibility to cover these connections.
To do so, networks of people can help provide
content to keep issues in the news, and even to
take the fall. The more people involved in taking
back the controls, the more likely it will happen.
If some goon-squad were to be sent out beyond
what already exists, there is an assumption that
within any such rogue elements, or organizations
that there are others who exist to protect the core
elements and will fight to protect the citizenry in
their defiance of totalitarian control of the people.
That is, not only a spook for a spook, but legions
of spooks, lawyers, bankers, economists, artists,
thinkers, activists, for every rogue element in the
organization, a balance of two-thirds that can be
a majority force at any given moment, without any
need to organize beyond constitutional connection.
That is, one is within their right to be a .US citizen.
Thus, as Bush said 'Bring 'em on' and begged for
pot-shots at battle-worn and fatigued troops, so too
people may say 'bring it on' for the rogue elements
to try to find such an information network that does
not exist anywhere, but in the spirit of democracy.
That is, it cannot be contained, snuffed out, it is the
part that remains and can be reactivated in worst-
case and worst-of-times scenarios, to get back on
track. And either you are 'with this' or 'against this'.
And, the Bush Administration is either with .US or
against .US by each decision it makes, and how it
deals with these mosquitos, freedoms of thought,
representation, checks-and-balances of power,
and respect for the value of truth in governance.
Until such issues are addressed, in full, that is,
the Enron connections, the Energy Task Force
connections, these to the Iraqi Oil and the Iraq
War, and the role of Vice President Cheney in
relation to these issues and the forged Uranium
documents and false-statements about Nuclear
programs in Iraq, the Bush Administration stands
discredited and is a destabilizing force which is
threatening the ability of the .US to survive intact.
North Korea, Iran, Syria cannot be dealt with if
there is no basis for truth or trust within the .US
administration as it is configured. This is thus a
crisis situation, and it is not possible to support
a government which lies to its own people and
has to deal with nuclear issues while not allowing
external review of information to check the facts
and decision making over things as serious as
global nuclear war, and the death of millions.
It is time for networks of individuals to work to
right the ship of state, through information, non-
violently, but with reason, truth, and yes, justice.
Until accountability is reconstituted, and current
policies directions are radically changed, there
is little likelihood of any significant transformation
in the time needed. If Russia and China would
help with the nuclear issues in Iran and N.Korea
that might give the US and Europe leverage to
work on internal crises between power and truth.
There are enough who are now speaking up to
make possible changes on the scales needed.
VP Cheney, without the political cover of an
infallible charismatic leader, awaits coverage.
When the black helicopter lands at the end of
the block to take me away, I won't e-mail you...
bc
--------
A White House Smear // .US Admin outs CIA agent?
<http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823>
Cheney task force had eyes on Iraq oil. By H. Josef Hebert
<http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/07/18/cheney/>
CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
Commerce & State Department Reports to Task Force Detail
Oilfield & Gas Projects, Contracts & Exploration
Saudi Arabian & UAE Oil Facilities Profiled As Well
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml>
[and] MAPS AND CHARTS OF OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE
1. Iraq Oil Map.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf>
2. Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.2.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf>
3. Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.1.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf>
4. UAE Oil Map.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/UAEOilMap.pdf>
5. UAE Oil Proj.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/UAEOilProj.pdf>
6. SA Oil Map.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/SAOilMap.pdf>
7. SAOilProj.PDF
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/SAOilProj.pdf>
White House energy task force papers reveal Iraqi oil maps. Judicial
Watch lawsuit also uncovers list of 'foreign suitors' for contracts
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642>
"Fitton says the White House still refuses to produce the list of
corporate and other private task force members who met with
administration officials, including Cheney, former head of Halliburton
Co., a Dallas-based energy-services firm that recently landed a
half-billion-dollar federal contract in Iraq." ... 'The unclassified
map of Iraq turned over by the Commerce Department, a government member
of the task force, shows the location of "supergiant" oil fields, oil
pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. Commerce Secretary Don
Evans, a long-time Bush friend from Texas, headed a Denver-based oil
company before joining the administration.' .. 'Though the papers came
from Commerce, Judicial Watch says they were responsive to its request
for task-force papers.' .. '"These are task-force documents," Fitton
asserted.' ... 'The Baker report, which was submitted to Cheney in
early April 2001, recommended considering a "military" option in
dealing with Iraq, which the report charged was using oil exports as a
"weapon," by turning its spigot on and off to "manipulate oil markets,"
WorldNetDaily has learned.'
More information about the Syndicate
mailing list