Dreadlocks site's servers are partialy funded by mining BTC on hashflare any additional profits are donated to Fredoms Wings International Soaring for people with disabilities
By Jakk Lyman, 2012-04-02
The real quick short version is---the one thing that links the right wing prior to the creation of the U.S. to after its creation---a fear of anything new and different, mixed with a strange and profound hate for Jewish people. I hope that got everyone's attention, allow me to explain:
Right wing, the term, arises from the time of the french revolution-it stood for those who sat to the right of the presidents chair-they were supportive of the monarchy, the aristocracy, and established church. They supported the divine right to rule, and considered it to be a natural law...in this way they are connected to the right of today who support social hierarchy and social inequality as natural and normal.
Back in the day they were very suspicious of anybody who didn't think as they did (much as they still are) and anybody who was against the monarchy, the church, and social inequality was very suspect in their eyes. The Illuminati was such a group. Adam Weishaupt was essentially raised by Jesuits and was very critical of the church and became an atheist early in his life. His writings could easily be considered a sort of embryonic anarchism or proto-anarchism, for instance; Weishaupt writes of how any person wishing to join the Order of the Illuminati out of a thirst for power is acting contrary to the society's aims:
'If you seek power, might, false honor, excess, then ... we shall leave you to the consequences of your folly: our inner sanctum will remain closed to such a person. But if you wish to learn wisdom, if you wish to learn how to make people more clever, better, free and happy, then you are welcome amongst us three times over.' --Adam Weishaupt. To further support this I found that the Illuminati hosted the first anarchist speaker in Germany some years later. Since I'm familiar with anarchist history I can tell you that in the early days when people were first experimenting with the idea of rebelling against the monarchy the idea of a natural order amongst the people without rulers, nobility or authoritarian hierarchy wasn't as "fringe" as it is today. Also, in these early days, the conviction of these people was truly something to behold. Few people know that Gandhi found influence in "Fields, Factories, and Workshops" by Peter Kropotkin, Russian royalty by birth, he turned his back on his station and his wealth for his convictions about anarchism. Now the crux of the conspiracy theory rests primarily on 3 things. First that Weishaupt created the Illuminati at Rothschild's request, for which there is not one shred of evidence that the two ever met even in chance crossing (though its possible, they were both alive around this time, but then, so were a lot of people). Two, that they took over the Freemasons, escaped persecution, and survive to this day. It is true that Weishaupt saw the Freemasons as a possible source for prospects to his new group, however, the masons rejected him! His rather atheistic, as well as anarchistic politics and social ideas didnt jive with masonry. It should also be understood that masonry of that period was rather diverse from lodge to lodge which I could easily see as being used to support the idea that there are different levels of freemasonry for the wealthy elite.It wasn't until much later that freemasonry became a more homogenous group.Anyway, Weishaupt did find some people from amongst Freemasons, but these were few and probably folks who saw things differently than the masons as a whole. An example of this would be Mikhail Bakunin, commonly understood to be the father of anarchism (though he wasn't the first anarchist,he was a disciple, so to speak,of the first) he had joined the Freemasons thinking and hoping the society could be a vehicle of anarchist revolution.He wrote of his experience saying he quit the masons after a very short time, totally disgusted with the group. Its conceivable that there were many like him, joining the masons believing them to be a rebellious group only to find them frustratingly status quo for their tastes. These people would be eager to leave for a group like Weishaupt's. Mozart, actually, was in the Illuminati sort of keeping with the idea and evidence that they were not the rich and powerful, but the artistic, intellectual, political and social radicals of their time. Mozart was quite poor most of his life. Weishaupt himself never made it past "blue" masonry--a very low,entry level-and fashioned 3 degrees of Illuminism after masonic rituals (he includes 6 degrees, but the other 3 he made up-probably because he never made it that far in actual masonry). As far as them surviving to this day, the Illuminati was persecuted heavily for their radical ideals and all evidence shows them having been crushed due to state repression. They never got more then (maybe) a few hundred. The 3rd is that Weishaupt was into "satanism" or "mystery school" religious teachings. All the evidence we have of Weishaupt suggest he abandoned all religious influence and never took up any "alternative" religions.
To understand this further its important to understand mores of the times. Secret societies were sort of trendy, in part because of the repressive reaction to the enlightenment and the ideas that sprang from it, and part from something we still see today; the wealthy elite getting bored with their money and taking up the trends of the "common folk." The very same right wingers that were paranoid of these progressive thinkers and their secret groups were forming secret groups of their own! We'll talk more about them later. One of the main and more popular charges imprinted within the conspiracy narrative is the "Lucifarian" principle. During the late 17-1800's due to the different views that sprang from the enlightenment (science and freedom) "Lucifer the light bringer" became a rather common euphemism. It goes something like this--In the garden of Eden man was like an animal, a slave to ignorance, and thus a slave to god. Through an act of rebellion and science (disobeying god and seeking knowledge) he came upon self knowledge and thus the tools for freedom and became a fully realized human being. This is not a specific teaching, (I myself came up with the very same idea when I was 13 and being rebellious) and it is found in very non-religious non-ritualistic and non-symbolic/non-mystery school type texts. Still, as far as its connection to Weishaupt goes, it just isn't there. It is found in writings by Albert Pike, who references "Illuminism"but there is no evidence that this was an actual reference to the "Illuminati"being "illuminated" was a common term of enlightenment era adherents of democracy-Pike was a mason as well as a very strange and contrary character himself. At this time the right wing was reinventing itself in the formation of a democracy, Pike was a member of almost every proto right wing club of his time, including the know-nothings and native-ists. The Lucifer light bringer scenario I just mentioned can also be found in Bakunin's writing, (in God and the State) and I assure you Bakunin and Pike would probably have killed one another had they met--being on polar opposites of the idealistic spectrum. So in short, the "light bringer" scenario is not a specific teaching monopolized by a specific group, in all the places I found it during this time period it wasn't even connected with satanism (although there are Christians who would disagree from the perspective that all philosophy and theology that is not christian is satanic, but I'm restricting the term satanic to those who believe in a god named Satan). Actually, that narrative will re-occur in future articles, part of the hybrid of religious, political and xenophobic conspiracy paranoia takes "multiculturalism" and uses imagery of different religions and ethnicity's getting along peacefully and molds it into some nefarious new world order plot. Like if your political official is a Buddhist they are probably "satanic" and plotting to get rid of Christianity and make one religion. Sounds like partisan nonsense, but it does play a considerable role in the conspiracy narrative so I will look at whatever evidence is presented with integrity.
To further drive a nail in this coffin lets look at when this particular conspiracy resurfaced and was reinvented. Anybody who is familiar with the theory knows of the 13 bloodlines. What was once a conspiracy of commoners to overthrow the divine right of elite rule is now just the opposite! The narrative changed to fit the times. The monarchy or royal families were coming back to reclaim their power because they have some sick idea they have a divine right to rule us! Hmmm, divine right, sound familiar? Well, actually, I'm getting ahead of myself. The royal family deal wasn't really tacked on until relatively recently. No, they weren't royalty yet,not when it first really resurfaced, they were commies! Whats more, Jewish commies (of course). As its told today, Rothschild moved to a building in which Jacob Schiff would later be born in-(what a connection right)-anyway Jacob Schiff it is said bank rolled the Bolshevik revolution. Anyone else checking their shoes right now?. Well, prior to the Russian revolution the Russian monarchy was running POGROMS on Jewish people (basically persecuting and killing Jews). I don't know if any of you are familiar with the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (the book Hitler used to justify his persecution of Jews)-anyway, it originated with the Russian monarchy to justify what they were doing before Hitler had even thought of it.The Russo-Japanese war rolls around and Japan found itself the beneficiary of a rather generous donation from a very concerned (very rich and Jewish) Jacob Schiff. Japan then went on to kick Russia's anti-Semitic ass. I'm sure that really alarmed a lot of people (particularly ant-Semitic jerks). Actually, it still does. There are rich people of every race and religion, however, Jewish folks have a reputation for really sticking together, particularly financially. I have no idea if this is cultural or what, but there have been enough Jewish anarchists (practicing and secular) that if there was some huge Jewish conspiracy it would have been blown open from the inside out long ago. Anyway, after Schiff helped the Japanese a rumor started that he was also behind the Bolsheviks. The "evidence" for this comes from the very same paper that was responsible for the "yellow journalism" nomenclature. A right wing nationalist paper known for making rather sensationalist claims. They had a story claiming Schiff's nephew told them that Schiff gave Lenin a large sum. This claim ended up in a State Dept. memo that had a list of suspected communists. The actual memo read like this: a name (then) JEW. It was, in short, a list of Jewish people with money. It even mentions the need to stop the spread of "international Jewry"and seemed more concerned with stopping the spread of Jewish wealth (capitalism) than stopping actual communism (which tended to liquidate private wealth into the coffers of the state)--I actually have a theory concerning the funding of Trotsky's red army, but that's for another article. In those days, as with these, the right is all about capitalism as long as its them making the money. The U.S. right wing in those days was eager to connect communism with Jews, and the "Illuminati" became that vehicle. The true fact is, there were a lot of left leaning Jewish people, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were Russian born Jewish people that immigrated to the U.S. and were anarchists of legendary stature.However this "left" was made up of many immigrant groups and poor people of many backgrounds. The "Jewish" aspect was really just one of many attempts to drive wedges between the workers in the midst of a labor movement. After Russia and during as well as after Germany the Jewish people were in a sense easy pickings, there was already a wealth of anti-Semitic propaganda ready and waiting for anybody stupid, hateful or naive enough to believe it. Capitalizing on this fact was an ex-czarist officer who had previously got his butt kicked by the Japanese (due to Jewish funding) and more recently ousted by the communists---he had a bone to pick with Schiff and Jews in general- supporting the "Jews are behind communism" theory obviously worked to his benefit and interest, making him a rather dubious source of evidence. There are other more ridiculous connections, like the Rothschild name meaning "red shield" and the socialist flag being red--the problem with that (other than the fact there are alot of red things out there, one can hardly call them all commies) is that socialism wasn't invented yet. Rothschild took the name in like the 1500's, socialism didnt come about for another 250 years. But as we've already found, nothing connects Rothschild to Weishaupt or the Illuminati. The labor movement and industrial revolution really changed everything, people didnt trust the rich, the rank and file right wing was dirt poor and sort of caught in a bind. The poor ones supported SOCIAL inequality (primarily because they didnt have wealth) and they needed to separate the bad guys from their rich benefactors, (hence, rich Jews bad, rich wasps good). Conversely the rich needed to break up the labor movement by drawing lines between "us" and "them" (the rich aren't F'ng you over, its those damn Jews etc).
Finally, the symbolism. The eye and pyramid was NEVER an Illuminati symbol. As a matter of fact, it WAS a Christian symbol, as well as a Hindu symbol, (and though its called an Egyptian symbol because of the pyramid their eye of horus was just an eye--we added the pyramid) and the Masons didnt start using it until about 30 years after it ended up on the dollar. Or so they claim. There is definitely more to the symbolism within our government and its agency's than meets the eye--whether it's been fitted retroactively and how significant it is is debatable though.
Now, I didnt want to address the whole conspiracy all at once, I just wanted to remove the "Illuminati" and communist jew part. Mainly because the Illuminati was awesome and they are having their name drug through the mud (so the right can connect progressive ideas with the N.W.O.) and I'm tired of people thinking capitalist institutions are communist because they have the support of the state. Institutions of power can be communist or capitalist. This is a capitalist system, profit and extreme wealth inequality are CAPITALIST. No capitalists would support a "N.W.O." if it involved emptying their bank accounts and handing all their private property over to the state to dole out as it saw fit. Its absolutely ridiculous when capitalists take aspects of capitalist reality and hold it up to capitalist theory and call it communist when it doesn't match up. Capitalism needs the state to protect its property, without the state the rich get army's of their own and you end up with a monarchy or feudalism, its always been that way--you cant have an unfair economic system if you cant protect your ill gotten gains. Also, the Jewish thing is just leftover from the Russians, then Germans got in on it, and later the KKK, John Birch Society RIGHT WING SECRET SOCIETY'S etc etc the "Z.O.G." (Zionist occupational government) conspiracy. There is more to that however, like how the neo-cons got cozy with the Jewish state. Traditionally the right has always been anti-Semitic, then something changed. This change has fueled the paranoid fires of the extreme right. Also, since the creation of Israel, the Mossad and Israels heavy handed land grabs against Palestine have fueled a newer conspiracy that actually has some justification and merit. The problem is separating it from the traditionally anti-Semitic/crypto-fascist ramblings of the extreme right.----OK, again this was off the top, if it reads sloppy, sorry, I'll probably do a re-edit later like I did with the other articles. Any questions or curiosities hit me up--jakk....................................oh, any of these subjects that I pulled back from because I didnt want to get to off track that anybody's interested in I can elaborate on, like the neo-con Jewish thing, communism/capitalism and revolutionary history, whatever..some of it i will touch on with other subjects---of which I'm not sure what Ill do next.
I'm also starting a new "secret society" called, the Illuminati, in the tradition of Weishaupt. Im working out the particulars, but anybody interested should hit me up, in the interest of keeping it properly "secret" and out of the prying eyes of repression I'll only be using the internet for this in a very limited way. Its a work in progress.---Jakk
-----One small update on Weishaupt's group concerning the 6 degrees. Apparently the first three degrees are known to all Freemasons, and as Ive said back in the day the Freemason lodges were not all a united group, they varied from lodge to lodge. It wasn't until 1813 that the Lodges united the Moderns and the Antients-which is just an obsolete spelling of ancient- (the two factions that the various lodges fell under). The first 3 degrees go like this: 1). The Entered Apprentice; basically the initiation (symbolically into maturity/spiritual maturity) and the initiate is to consider charity to his fellow man and his relationship with god.2). The Fellow Craft degree; refers to the hidden mystery's of nature and science and has something to do about teaching one to be a human being and is considered a bridge to the 3rd degree from operative masonry to speculative masonry. 3). The Master Mason degree; this has to do with some guy named Hiram Abiff and a role play where the mason pretends to be this guy or something-the whole thing has to do with sticking to ones faith and avoiding the easy path of secular life they overcome the trappings of the physical body and attain unity with god. The next 3 were not official Freemason doctrine until the unification-called the Royal Arch (which is Mark Master, Excellent Master, and Holy Royal Arch) and each degree is controlled by a different chair (and gets a little more complicated from there). Anyway, considering the religious nature of the first three degrees and the nature of Weishaupt's writing and his attitude towards religion its more plausible that while he based his first 3 degrees on masonry they probably didnt resemble the masonic degrees much at all. As for the other 3, it may be they had not been invented yet, or that any degrees past the first 3 varied from lodge to lodge and did not become homogenous until the unification; though it really doesn't matter as its said that Weishaupt's last 3 were not based on masonry anyway. These 6 degrees are what is recognized by the Grand Lodge, I haven't found mention of the famed 33rd degrees. Although there seem to still be some variation within freemasonry as far as the Scottish and the English lodge is concerned. The Blue lodge (the one mentioned with Weishaupt) or Craft lodge or Ancient craft lodge all work the first 3 degrees. The appendant masonic orders (York's Rite & Scottish Rite) are somehow different. The more traditional (Blue ) represent English and Irish masonry--and apparently has recently caught on in the U.S. However, it is of some interest that it is within these last 3 degrees that allegory's concerning King Solomon's Temple appear. Its no secret that masons have some weird thing with that Temple as it appears in many conspiracy narratives.
Again, I make no suppositions or assumptions where the rest of the conspiracy is concernedI say only this; the Illuminati has nothing to do with it, the all seeing eye is not a part of the Illuminati, it is not a communist conspiracy, nor is it a Jewish conspiracy or a communist Jewish conspiracy. Any involvement of the Rothschild's and their banking system and debt control has nothing to do with the Illuminati, communism, or the vast majority of Jewish people. The Jewish state undoubtedly engages in the activities that every state does, and any attempt at turning this into a narrative suggesting a singularly Jewish conspiracy or threat should be regarded as nationalist crypto-fascism, unless it is presented side by side with a conspiracy of every state and their dominant populations to further their own agendas; in this context it would then be clear thats its actions are normal as far as nation states go.
By Jakk Lyman, 2012-03-30
Hello--I'm currently writing two books, so I havent been on the site in awhile, but, within the next couple days im going to write a little piece on the Illuminati, where that conspiracy narrative originates and how it evolved as well as the truth about Weishaupts group (thats actually what one of the books Im writing is about). So that will be up soon, thanks everybody who reads my babble and comments and likes and discusses and converses and makes me feel like Im not totally wasting my time, I love to write, and those who love to write like to be read
By Jakk Lyman, 2012-03-10
There are, as with many things today, a great many misconceptions about the "free press." Generally speaking those that believe what they read and hear via mainstream media are being mislead (to put it lightly), and those that know they are being lied to have little idea as to how the system works. There is no commandant' lurking in the background, no corporate henchman saying print this and print that, no cia man threatening people with mysterious accidents--usually. However there are always exceptions. We are mostly concerned with how things normally work; how the narrative is manipulated on a daily basis.
In the U.S. our media pretty much started out on the wrong foot. All that jive we hear about our founding fathers and free press was really about two competing political parties. Back then the press was little more than a vehicle for propaganda, each party had its own newspapers which served their own interests. No-one ever thought regular people would get in on the act, but eventually they did. When this happened the constitution protected them too, so any law made that restricted the press had to be applied evenly and be judged 'constitutional.' This by the way, is why I'm not a big constitution guy; anybody who entrusts their freedom to a piece of paper that is subject to legal interpretation by the judges and lawyers of the privileged class has been severely mislead--but that's a subject for another time.
So news became a big business, and anybody with the money and time could get in on the act. For the most part the "money and time" restriction kept the papers serving the privileged, not to mention the further back you go meant the poorer and more marginalized and exploited you were; even less was done in the way of protecting poor people from rich people back then. So if you were poor enough to be pissed off, chances are you couldn't articulate it in an intelligent and effective way that people wanted to read about.
The industrial revolution changed everything. Actually I'm glossing over something important, I don't want to mislead anyone--The enlightenment cultural movement of 18th century Europe and the introduction of the printing press in 1440 lent a considerable amount of ammo for everything we've been discussing. So very quickly, pre-18th century discoveries and intellectuals and their thought and discoveries spread via printing press inspiring the enlightenment, the enlightenment brought forth liberalism and ideas about democracy, capitalism (yes, liberals are capitalists,all you anti-capitalists should keep that in mind) etc. etc. the age of reason. However, capitalism brought forth a new (or timeless, depending on how you view it) method of separating the rulers from the ruled, wealth. However, amongst all the rhetoric about freedom and human rights, some people began to take it seriously. OK now, on comes industrial revolution (roughly mid 1700's to late 1800's) and the rise of industrial capitalism.(insert "empire" theme music from star wars)
A great many and diverse people became victims of labor saving devices; so educated people were now mixing it up with folks that had just gone from bad to @#%!. You know how people talk. So all of a sudden people are organizing, co-operating, pooling their money together, collectivizing--and printing their ideas and passing them around. The papers that were owned by wealthy profit seekers ignored these stories, for much the same reasons they do today, they are not going to be the vehicle that spreads ideas like democratic worker collectives, unions, and whatnot.
Not only was all this labor movement stuff upsetting the delicate balance of rich man own poor man, the papers that were owned by honest capitalists just trying to make a buck off another guys labor were suddenly having to compete!! Contrary to popular belief competition is only a good capitalist principle when its poor people competing with other poor people for rich people's scraps. The second rich people have to start competing with poor people it becomes communism or something. Anyway,they don't like it and they weren't going to take it lying down.
This was going on in the U.K. and Europe as well. In the U.K. there was a very strong labor movement that was in many ways fueled by a working class paper that reported on issues that effected the working person. The papers owned by capitalists simply were not bought by the working people because they did not cover labor issues or when they did the didn't cover them favorably or truthfully. Often in social movements when people know that others believe and think like them it adds a measure of solidarity, to know that you are in support of others and others in turn support you. When groups get isolated or feel isolated and are not aware that there are others fighting the same fight as them they often lose momentum and fade--in the U.K. it was believed if they could put the working class papers out of business they could cripple the labor movement in just such a way.
The capitalists went to and worked with the government trying all sorts of things; expensive licensing regulations, taxes,raising prices on equipment--they basically tried to raise the cost of manufacturing and printing but none of it worked. Then someone had the brilliant idea to pay the paper to carry their advertisement. This gave the capitalist's a much needed influx of cash as the worker's paper was kicking their butt in sales, but it also did something else. Once they got enough advertisers they no longer had to cover the cost of manufacturing with the sales of their paper!! This allowed them to sell the paper way under what it cost to make, not only that but they could make it bigger, more glossy and fancy--and still be cheaper than the other paper. Of coarse the advertisers weren't going to do the same for a paper that catered to those that were unionizing (perhaps in their business); and so the workers living on a pitiful wage bought the cheaper, bigger paper without knowing they were killing their own movement in the process.
The ad-based media system spread and to this day most media outlets are trained, they don't need someone looking over their shoulder, they are sensitive to anything that might cause their advertisers to pull out. Now this is only one factor in a very complex system that has a philosophical and theoretical base as well. Walter Lippmann, John Dewey, and a whole host of intellectuals in-between the two had this idea that democracy should be an affair conducted between the educated responsible people, and that the "untamed herd" needed to remain spectators. If any of you have not read any Noam Chomsky yet he's done some great research on that circle of intellectuals and the ideas and influence they had, and continue to have, on modern democracies. Walter Lippmann was the one who coined the term "manufacturing consent" and the idea is that the responsible people must mobilize or manipulate the masses/public opinion to support the interests of the privileged. Actually it gets more complicated, according to real democratic intellectuals most of us just need to follow orders while another section gets manipulated to order us around in the interest of a dominant few. The real idea behind the type of democracy we have (representative) has little to do with people actually representing us, its a way for the elite to share power, nothing more. Direct democracy is what most people think of when they think of democracy and freedom, however direct democracy is basically what anarchism is--but we'll stick to media.
Another aspect is ownership, there have been attempts to monopolize the media to control it even further than the interests of advertisers. J.P. Morgan once charged one of his lawyers to find out how many papers he would have to buy in order to effectively control the media. Several months later he bought some 50 newspapers. This was actually brought up before congress in the early 1900's by senator Calloway who was concerned that J.P. Morgan (already under suspicion for other devious rich guy stuff) was monopolizing the press to control information--because it is that easy--think about this, when the gov. was testing the A-bomb in secret they did some detonations above ground, this of coarse was seen a hundred miles away--all they needed to do was run a story in the paper saying a weapons depo caught fire and blew up. If the paper people say it, nobody questions it unless its a matter of opinion. Anyway, nothing came of the congress thing anyway.
Since i've already done advertising and ownership I might as well get into the E.S. Herman and Noam Chomsky propaganda model. E.S. Herman is a media analyst, Chomsky is a Linguist, professor, and anarchist. They came up with a model to analyze the amount of info control your media goes through. In order to create this model they needed to isolate the factors of control in the media. They arrived at 5 filters that effect our media accuracy. 1. Ownership, size and the profit seeking imperative of the corporations or conglomerates involved create a bias where anything that threatens the profit interests of the owners faces censorship. In the age of transnationals and conglomerates those interests are many and varied, and if maximizing profit means sacrificing objectivity than it stands to reason that those media corporations that survive the "competition" of capitalism must be fundamentally biased. 2. Advertising, we've already covered much of advertising but its important to understand that the customer is not you, you are the product being sold to advertisers, the news is just filler between ads. T.V. polls have been done that found audiences prefer documentaries--or at least would like to see more informative programming; however, its been found that shows that are intellectually stimulating dampen the buying mood. As a matter of fact its been discovered that the more intelligent a person is the more skeptical of advertising they tend to be. So entertainment is geared not only to wetting the consumer appetite but targeting specific demographics as well. They are no longer as concerned with getting everyone to watch tv,as much as the demographic they've found to be susceptible to commercials. 3. Sourcing; this is another important one that will dove tail into the next subject, public relations. Sourcing basically rests on the principle that it simply is not feasible to have a reporter everyplace at once investigating every piece of news. So a symbiotic relationship is formed between news agencies and official channels where "news" often happens. They give the media people news, the media people "report it" to us; its like a subsidy, where news is the currency. Of coarse corp. media doesn't want to screw up their subsidy; this can get their access to privileged events revoked (like press releases) and make them dependent on their own investigations which cost money--and in light of other filters would likely result in news they couldn't release anyway. Public relations was a phrase coined by Edward Bernays to replace the less popular "propaganda," all of our government dept.'s have their own public relations agency's which (public relations) in and of itself has become a huge industry of its own. Its interesting to note that billions of our tax dollars go towards propaganda that ends up in our media. 4. Flak is negative responses to certain media stories. Anyone with enough money can create flak, which once again puts the ball in the court of the rich. Sometimes however; unions, animal rights groups and so on can create flak, but no-where on the level of say, the Global Climate Coalition (sounds like an environmental group huh?) created by Exxon, Texaco, and Ford to attack the credibility of climate scientists. Flak is just another vehicle by which the rich can manage public information and thus adjust public opinion. Another example would be when GMO foods was about to find its way to Oregon voters; after everything I've heard I figured its a no brainer, vote that shit out, ban it, do whatever its evil, right? Monsanto launched a huge flak and public relations campaign to the tune of several million dollars right before voting day and Oregon is still just the same, GMO everywhere and no way know or make a choice. 5. Anti-communist ideology. When Herman and Chomsky came up with this model it was during the cold war although it is still pretty much as true today as it ever was. Capitalism is equated with freedom in the U.S. and anything that challenges that ideology is evil. Tack "communism" onto any regime and it will get bad press, its context will change, the emotive words will get more impassioned, and any negativity associated with the enemy state will get wide circulation. In today's press I would add terrorism to that as well as any sufficient fear pumping ideology. A good example of this would be how leftist groups are routinely called terrorist even though property damage is generally the extent of the crime committed. A few years back some poor kid received 40 years for burning some SUV's. This is how controlling public opinion and fears manifest in the real world (aside from the more obvious wars).
In the aforementioned model and in the book "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and E.S. Herman differences in coverage between client or friendly states and enemy states is also cited. For instance the "genocide" in Kosovo (which according to independent press agencies it was closer to a typical civil war with a comparable body count on both sides) and the barely reported conflict when Indonesia invaded east Timor--one cia official said it was the worst thing since the Holocaust, yet most people were not aware it was happening--many still know nothing about it. Since then there have been plenty of other conflicts and examples. Prior to 9/11 a cia asset sent warnings to the New York Times as well as many other papers concerning the upcoming terror event, as they were fully aware of it, yet nothing was printed, and whats more, when the official story came out claiming they (the gov/cia etc.) had no idea the press agencies had proof to the contrary, yet that lie was supported by our media. Another often cited example is the legitimizing of elections in friendly countries that are clearly fraudulent to independent observers and calling legitimate elections fraudulent when leftist leaning regimes are voted into power.
Edward Bernays and the public relations revolution. When Woodrow Wilson was running for president he ran on the "peace ticket" Peace Without Victory was the motto and the people of the U.S. loved it; they wanted no part in WW1. It was seen as a European conflict and the U.S. wanted to stay out. Wilson had no intention of keeping us out of the war however, and created what came to be called the Creel Commission because of George Creel the newspaper man. Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, was also on this commission which was the first major propaganda agency of its kind, at least in the U.S. They were charged with changing the opinion of the U.S. people about the war. Within six months time or so they had the U.S. people thirsty for German blood. Propaganda about the "Huns" being baby killers and so on was routinely found in the papers.
After WW1 Edward Bernays was so impressed with what they had accomplished he began to find ways to market propaganda. He used Freudian Psychology to help sell products. The idea was that if he could discover what a particular product symbolized to a particular people or connect a product with a powerful symbol that was attractive to people he could effectively lower peoples defenses and make them more susceptible to advertising. It worked brilliantly. His first big client was Lucky Strike cigarettes, they wanted to expand their client base to woman, who at that time weren't smoking as it was socially frowned upon. He decided (in typical Freudian fashion) that cigarettes symbolized penis's to woman--whats more they symbolized the freedom a penis would bring. So he staged an event where young debutantes at a parade in NYC would appear and all light up cigarettes at the same time and call them "torches of freedom"--he got the press involved and it was a success. It couldn't have happened at a more opportune time as the role of the U.S. citizen was about to be changed to that of consumer. All you people that live in European countries are dealing with the same thing to greater or lesser degrees as this phenomenon is inseparable from capitalist representative democracies. Soon government would get a piece of the action along with corporations and businesses that needed image makeovers and the public relations industry was born...
Now all of this Ive been writing about is consistent, systematic behavior carried out within the market relationship of big business and government. It is consistent with and born from ideologies that believe democracies are spectator sports where the many are subject to the few. Where a free economic system puts all the leverage with the wealthy, privileged, elite. Where the masses are considered too irresponsible and stupid to play a significant role in the decision making process. Where the dominant minority does everything it can to make sure people are undereducated, misinformed, and too preoccupied to know the difference or do anything about it. We are told its our fault, its "human nature"--that their wars for their profit is my fault because of my flawed nature. We are told that without them the normally timid people I see on a day to day, people too scared to stick up for themselves half the time, these same people that run from fights most of the time, these people that volunteer, these people that keep the food bank stocked, these people that are sometimes rude, usually nice, these people who are not perfect but far from bad, these same people that defecate on themselves when forced onto the battlefields, these same people that take their own lives after they've been forced to kill, these people --would suddenly fall into insanity and rob, rape, and kill one another if it wasn't for the benevolent responsible rule of the elite, that without their system we'd have chaos.
By Jakk Lyman, 2012-03-02
I decided to write this because sometimes its difficult to relate to people, they make so many assumptions. I suppose its something we all do for convenience, but the past few years Ive begun checking myself--somewhere between studying logic, epistemology and personal experience Ive begun leaving the assumptions behind. For all intents and purposes Ive been on the street for the better part of about 20 some odd years. I got used to being treated like a second class citizen a long time ago, and this definitely affected how I saw the world. Even though I squatted and traveled I had to recognize that most of the people in these groups came from nice middle class families and had left home to have an adventure. Im not saying theres anything wrong with that, I think its great, but my experiences and their experiences were radically different. In 1988 when I was 12 and eating out of dumpsters there was nothing cool about it. The local schools would have nothing to do with me, and most kids werent allowed to be around me. I was considered "scummy" by most, and it wasnt until much later that being a dirty kid became a cool thing--and that was only cool in a very limited sense. I crossed the law a bunch and was on a serious habituary offender list at 13, my first arrest was a home invasion. This high school kid was making a 12 year old run away girl 'put out' for shelter while his parents were out of town. I went up in his house with a gun and a couple homeboys and got her out of there as well as robbed him proper. Ive never felt all that bad about it. I was kind of jealous that other kids got to go to school and after sort of re-teaching myself how to read in juvenile (back then I never did more than 90 days-but it was all cell time,no yard or movement) I began reading everything I could get my hands on. I spent about 7 months in the DSHS system, but after calling CPS on a facility that was beating (and later I found out raping) the kids, CPS told me to shut up or they'd shut me up, and then sent me to a boys ranch/work camp run by wherehauser. After i escaped the DSHS system basically let me go and I never had trouble with them again. Later in my life when I was selling dope and living in SF I would get a call from a lawyer to tell me I was the only one to ever say anything about the OK boys ranch in Olympia Wa. and that there was a class action lawsuit going on-thats when I found out the workers were raping the kids. One kid won a million dollars from that place but killed himself about a year after the suit. SF was the first place I ever paid rent, I tried to do it the legal way at first, I was squatting this shit-hole church on 15th and delores and working at a movie theater making 4.25 an hr.-that wasnt getting me anywhere, so I invested. I sold speed (never used it, never liked it) and eventually grew weed as well. Later I would move on to heroin, cocaine (hard and soft) as well as guns. Im sure this all sounds horrible and hypocritical, after all, I was and am an anarchist--and I dont mean I listened to too much punk rock, I learned about real anarchism from a college kid that put me up for awhile when I was 13-14 and began directing my thoughts and research in that direction. In my teens I was organizing demonstrations--all that good stuff. I did get really disillusioned though, where I constantly questioned and searched others seemed to accept whatever as a part of their identity, and if anything was brought up or a position taken that conflicted with those identities....well, Ive seen people basically blacklisted over straight bullshit. As angry as I was, and still am, Ive always had a strong compassionate and empathetic side as well.--anyway, at one point i moved to TX cuz it looked like the dea was about to catch up with me. TX sucked. I got locked up so fast in TX over such minor shit. Dallas was the worst, the neighborhood I was in was right next to a street with a bunch of clubs, several of them were gay clubs and one night I came across a small crowd of people standing over this poor guy who had just taken a brick to the head for being gay. "dont touch him he probably has aids" I heard one of em say, there was blood everywhere and the guy probably thought he was dying--I did. I took off my shirt and used it for a pillow and to try and stop the guys bleeding and held his hand while I tried to make them call an ambulance-which they finally did. I just didnt understand people. Not more than a week after that I come across this Asian guy being beat with bottles being called a communist gook-I used my body to take the bottles so he could get to his car. A couple days later I tried to bum a cigarette on that same strip in a crowd of people outside a club, as I put a cigarette in my mouth I got slapped blindside by this lesbian and people cheered as she cussed me out for being a bum and a mooch. This type of mob hatred for the downtrodden was pretty common, I'd go in a coffee shop to buy a coffee and be told my business wasnt wanted (homeless people not allowed)-cuz at that point I was back to being homeless--I got my apt. raided when I was living in austin for distribution (it was pathetic really I was peddling dime-bags to make rent) While I was in state jail in TX I refused to get with my "race" as your supposed to. I saw this poor white boy sold to the BGF for a bag of coffee cuz he shared his commissary with a black. I stuck to my guns though, I dont get along with nazis, I dont get along with any of that. After several confrontations with various whites the Gangster Disciples brought me into their organization, they liked how I carried myself and that I fight for mine.I was also pretty open and outspoken about my politics and made some good friends with alot of the older gangsters--we'd chop it up about the black panthers and I loved to introduce folks to revolutionary perspectives that they hadnt been aware of. When I finally left TX and went up north I was having trouble finding work-shit I was having trouble getting an ID, I ran into my Dad, he was living alone and dying of dementia, I wanted to help but I was living in the woods. Sooo, I started doing the only thing that had ever consistently got me on my feet, I was snitched out and did another year. That sentence wasnt that bad, as far as time went. I told the prison I was a buddhist and was vegan for religious purposes. There were alot of swastica tattoos at classification, but since I was GD I just found the G's and did my time with them. The whites hate that. In TX even the guards got in on it, stripping me down on the main line to chow. Washington wasnt as bad though, I did have to go before a security threat board where they asked me about my anarchist politics--they were more concerned with that then my gang affiliation (cuz its all on file) When I got out though I had the stuff i needed to get an ID so I could work. I got a place and moved my Dad in, but after he broke his hip I had to quit my job because he needed round the clock care--thats when I got into school, I figured financial aid could help with the bills and I could do what I enjoy most-- learn stuff. School was alright, a little on the eazy side, but having to take care of my Dad at the same time definitely made things difficult. I watched as he grew more and more frustrated because his mind was turning on him--and the world around him no longer had use for a human that couldnt create profit for somebody. He died last August, and I moved here. Now Im living in a borrowed RV, Im getting the chance to buy it though for 1500, a good price. Never had a drivers license, thats on the list. Since Ive been here in portland its alot of the same old shit, I dont sell drugs anymore, Im sick of going to prison, but if someone with money says "move that thing" its time to move, ive gotten $150.tickets, tow notices....its illegal to sleep in a vehicle, they'd rather have you under a bridge where they dont have to look at you. A few weeks ago a couple homeless guys were shot while they slept. Its ironic, the system that instills these types of relating to one another uses these examples as an excuse for why we need it. We dont though, its a common misconception that how we currently act is "natural" or a result of "human nature"--but these are cultural constructs. As I continue writing articles (Ive already written the education one) I hope that it will become clear that a considerable amount of time and resources are dedicated to upholding these constructs. For something we'd supposedly do "naturally" it sure does take alot of work to keep us on task. Particularly in the U.S. where we are all immigrants, what we lack in traditional culture has been replaced by capitalism. Capitalism is a way of relating to one another. It carrys the ideal of authority throughout every institution, after all, there is always a boss and a hierarchy, and the american dream is to become the boss, to climb the social ladder-stepping on everyone that gets in the way. Competition and greed have become the center pieces of our social, political and economic system. When people say-oh thats human nature, I say thats a cop-out, cuz human nature is very diverse, so much so that there have been cultures and systems that do not work like this. Nothings perfect, but to base our entire system on our worst traits is insane, not only are we glorifying them, we are refining the worst we have to offer. When I say these things I dont say them glibly or easily. This is based not only from a life of experience, but that life has been aware, nearly from day one, of what was being experienced--and Ive also violated statistical probability, statistically I should be barely literate and emotionally disturbed--Im one of the most intelligent, happy, and emotionally healthy people I know ( I couldnt think of a modest way of writing that so I figured fuck it)--but in this sense Im lucky, because things are organized so that those who would normally gain the most insight about our culture are cruelly marginalized and simply cant articulate how, why, or what. This is to say nothing for the fact that information is managed so that on the one hand there is a cacophony of opinions and theories competing, and on the other, a slow repetitive clear voice of official "reason."
Hopefully I'm not just writing this to myself. There is a simple solution. Its taken me 20 years to understand it, and its already here after a fashion, its been emerging though cloaked in alot of useless sophistication.--and no its not love, while yes thats a good thing people have been telling people to love one another for freakin ever and things are still screwed up. Its not Jesus, at least not for me and a good portion of the world, if religion could solve our problems or even get us on the right track we'd be there by now. It isnt some complex system that requires everyone to get on the same page and do things the same way, that will never work-and as the population grows we get further away from that possibility. No, Im convinced we need to work toward anarchism, but thats not it either-cuz we'll never get everyone to go for that, they need to get there themselves. We need something simple that doesnt require alot of explaining, something that allows everyone to do things however it might work best, something that allows failure but not ruin, something where success spreads rather than being horded. A simple principle that has real active applicable results, one that changes perception as it spreads. Something we can actively work with, something we can do that demonstrates what the world could look like. Something that gives results we'll want to defend.------------As soon as I figure out how to present it, I will. Its something Im sure everyones heard of in a way.Ive been mulling it over and the more I think about it the better it seems. Its not perfect mind you, but its a way to start, to get our foot in the door of real change.---Jakk
By Jakk Lyman, 2012-02-29
First I'd like to say thanks and I think its really cool that people are interested in this. I think its important that we understand whats going on in the world, with a good and comprehensive understanding we can actually work on real solutions. I am doing all this from memory, I recently went through a bit of an upheaval and moved (everytime this happens I have to give up my books and start all over). I was going to write a short on the truth about the illuminati and NWO conspiracy, as well as chemtrails since it appears to be a hot topic, but I think I'll reserve that for single conspiracy article. However, conspiracy and secrecy are natural by-products of power. Why is this? Its a bit complicated, but as far as we are concerned here state power and private power (obscene wealth) rests on violence, manipulation, and exploitation. Without which they'd lose control-- and history has shown that any force that openly and honestly does these things with full disclosure to the populace doesn't last long. Once that is acknowledged we need to put it into a realistic context, to understand the reality behind it--which is deliberate conspiracy, and which is the powerful simply(and independently) working in their own interest? Usually they are just working in their own interest and lying to us about it, which, under certain circumstances, looks alot like a "conspiracy"--and sometimes, like in the case of our schools, the lines get very blurry.
Using education to socially engineer the populace towards certain ends has been used sporadically by different states throughout history. In china it was called "the policy of keeping people dumb," during the times of ancient greece one of the greco-ish states (I think it may have been sparta, but ive honestly forgotten) used compulsory education to make people useful to the state, India used it to support its caste system. Ours is based on the Prussian system however, with a smattering of influence from India.
Back in the day Prussia was basically a mercenary state, their military was a seasoned and professional "exportable good." When there was a war various states/kingdoms in Europe would use the Prussian military to bolster their own. That is until they got their asses handed to them by a young and amateur Napoleon. This was bad for business, not only had they lost but they lost to a comparatively green army. They held a big congress to discuss the problem, and the congress broke into two factions. One faction insisted their soldiers were too submissive, there wasn't enough independent thought--if they weren't following orders they were useless. The other faction took the opposite opinion, the soldiers were too independent, they needed to stop all that independent thinking and be the mailed fist of the state they were meant to be. Of coarse that side won, no state in its right mind encourages a free thinking independent populace. The solution was to create an education system where the developing years of the people could be monopolized and molded by the state.
Skip to the U.S., pre-industrial revolution. While we know these were not exactly the mythical years of american democratic perfection the history books would have us believe, there were areas where the people retained certain freedoms that industrial capitalism would soon remove. One was work, while slavery and a small amount of wage labor were taking place, most people who could make their own way were artisans or farmers. They determined their own hours and were respected, and respected themselves, as free men ( they were usually white & male-its important we recognize good ideas without glossing over reality). School was another, and for those who were allowed and had the means to receive an education, the one room school house was common. This method had several advantages, for one, a sort of free market for teaching methods existed, methods that worked were kept and got better. In those days a 13 year old that had attended school was reading at what would be considered a college level today, as using the old phonetic method for teaching reading took only about 80 hours. Reading was easier to pick up and as a result wasn't perceived as the "work" or "chore" it is by most kids today--many read for enjoyment. Another basic advantage was the multi-age classroom, young children could look to older children for help (they spoke a similar language) as well as see where they themselves might be one day and conversely older kids could get a greater understanding of the material through teaching the younger and see where they themselves once were. This creates not only a deeper level of understanding of the lessons but of eachother and...this is important...a sense of time. The age segregation common in todays schools create an A-historical perspective, kids have no sense of time or of cause and effect. There were other advantages as well, smaller class sizes and, my personal favorite, children were pretty much done with their basic education at 13-14 and ready to take on apprenticeships. A person might go through 2 or 3 apprenticeships before deciding what they wanted to do, or move on to higher education, which in those days people still did because they wanted to learn, not simply make themselves more attractive to an employer. If you contrast this against contemporary times many are stuck in the first trade they are hired in, and those that attend college generally do so late enough in their lives that if they are not hired within their chosen field the future is uncertain for them.
On came the industrial revolution, suddenly people who once retained a sense of freedom, independence, and personal pride were forced to rent themselves and use their labor to enrich another. Working conditions were deplorable, hours inhumane, and the wages barely kept them alive. In many circumstances the employer kept tent cities or ramshackle communities for the laborers because they couldn't afford to live anywhere else. This was often contrasted against slavery where the owner had to at least care for their "property"-under this new system the boss simply threw them away when they were no longer of use as there were several to take their place. Under capitalism an abundance of something tends to lessen its value, so the more skill-less work industry could produce....well, anybody could do it, even a child, and there's lots and lots of people, so life was/is cheap. This by the way is why a huge army of unemployed is essential to capitalism as it currently works, the more people there are to take your place, the less you get paid and the less likely you are to demand a raise.
Needless to say people were pissed off and unhappy. New social, political, and economic theories were getting a receptive audience; like socialism & communism,-and there are many different types of each. For the purpose of these articles we will break them into two categories; state or authoritarian and libertarian (libertarianism, before being co-opted by the right, originally meant a state-less form of socialism (more or less) or "anarchism")--anarchism was also growing in popularity, the IWW or "wobblies" advocated what would come to be called anarcho-syndicilism.
The industrial capitalists were making a fortune, but the workers were organizing, and if this kept up things could get out of control. Indeed, as the years rolled by the labor movement was marked heavily by violence and repression-both by the state and industry. In the late 1800 early 1900's the Rockefeller's along with several other heads of industry (mostly steel and coal if I remember correctly) got wind of Prussia's experiment with education, and elected to create an educational monopoly of their own. This is one of the really scary examples of what the private powers and the state are capable of when they work together. This was also the time period that the social sciences were particularly controversial and growing in popularity. Funded almost exclusively by private interests and legitimized and legalized by the state almost everyone got in on the act, psychologists--the whole bit.I cant remember the names of all the people involved but there was another guy who made a special trip to India and saw the wonders of their caste system, he too had something to contribute. In the words of one of the education associations---"We mean to do through education what European dictators have tried through coercion and force."---It really doesnt get more straight to the point than that. There is another quote by Rockefeller addressing some educational committee himself that goes something to the effect of, "....In a perfect world people give themselves willingly to our capable hands to mold...we do not mean to create philosophers, statesmen, artists or scientists for which we have in abundance...we seek to create children to do perfectly what their parents are currently doing imperfectly" and the unstated purpose here appears to be work without complaint. When this program was finally implemented it was heavily resisted, in some cases the national guard was called to march kids off to school. What we take for granted today as totally normal was seen as an outrageous misuse of state power, nobody trusted it, why should people send their kids to be educated by the state when they were getting a perfectly fine education already? It was not uncommon back then for an "educated" person to be an artist or philosopher as well as a scientist of some kind and a tradesman!!
This is a perfect example of how an institution upholds the system, it doesnt require your teacher to know how it works, or why it was created, it becomes a part of our narrative, and as such, virtually unquestioned. Everyone acknowledges there are problems in education, but now that you know what the real problem is, do any of their proposed solutions even begin to touch the problem? Standardized testing operates like social eugenics, not weeding out the stupid ones, just the ones that cant conform to the curriculum. This curriculum is way too sophisticated for me to really break down, but in the 70's it was revamped and updated. This was when medicating children with psychoactive drugs was planned to become a part of policy, and by the 80's parents who were reluctant to medicate were getting visits by CPS if the school counselor had made such a "recommendation." The army intelligence agency discovered the hidden curriculum when they noticed literacy was going down significantly within single generations. We dont question things like that, we blame TV, poor people,minority's or teachers unions. Intelligence agency's however make it their business to not only manipulate populations, but recognize when they are being manipulated, and army intelligence launched an investigation into our school system because they knew it was IMPOSSIBLE for a population to spontaneously get dumber without any outside systemic influence within a single generation. According to their report, literacy went down proportionately to how much money was being thrown at education. Think about that. That means the more tools and money and stuff they get for you or your childs education the better they can implement the curriculum. It also means those schools that actually show improvement from an influx of cash, like East St. Louis for example, have fallen so far below the standards that the agenda to make us dumb and submissive is actually a step up. We recently sold our curriculum to China. When i first read that in the news it blew me away, their kids are way smarter than ours...I guess thats a problem for them.
If your interested in this topic John Taylor Gatto, an award winning teacher from NY really did this research. He wrote, "Dumbing Us Down" a small quick read, it covers 'the seven lessons' (a look at the 7 pathologies he associates with our schools), and "The Underground History of American Education" a mammoth book packed with all his research, excellent bibliography, a bit dry and "Weapons Of Mass Instruction" a compressed version of Underground History that reads like a Chomsky, some new info, a really fun info packed read. Another author that tackles more contemporary problems within education (like socio-economic racism) is Jonathon Kozol, he wrote "Amazing grace" and "Savage Inequalities"
Next will be media, propaganda, and information management....I leave with a quote,
"We are going to inherit the earth. There is not the slightest doubt about that.The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it leaves the stage of history.We are not afraid of ruins.We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again,only better next time.We carry a new world here in our hearts.That world is growing this minute.-Durruti
By Jakk Lyman, 2012-02-28
Im of the opinion that dreadlox should be natural-the state has shaved my head twice and each set ive grown back has been different. Dreads werent meant to be trendy-this is just my opinion-I know that lots of people are getting them these days cuz they look cool--- Dreads are more than just a hairstyle to me, I know this sounds corny, but its how I feel...Dreads should be natty, wild, and free--not uniform, overnight, and perfect. In this sense they represent, and are a part of me. I left home when I was 12, and have spent my life in and out of institutions--as well as traveling, squatting and lawbreaking.
I last completed the 7th grade in the compulsory school system, and have spent the last 20 some odd years educating myself. I recently went to college for awhile and made A's so easily it lost its appeal. For 4 years I took whatever interested me, and designed some classes as well. I loved logic, and still study it independently. I'd like to start (maybe a weekly) blog here concerning the real problems afflicting our world, particularly the actions of the U.S., and do some myth busting on the subject of the illuminati--I'm not saying all conspiracies are lies, or that there isnt hidden nuggets of truth in the alex jones/zeitgeist etc.but most of it is out of context + outright lies + reframing and redefining words/semantics + a web of correlates from unrelated quotes,symbolism,geographies and times + the use of amateur unqualified "experts" where experts arent needed to create an atmosphere of legitimacy...not to mention (remember I study logic) that the standard algorithm's of the argument's are are awful..
The first place I'd start is the creation and hidden purpose of our/U.S. compulsory school system (many nations have adopted this model) its all well documented and I'll cite my sources whenever possible. Then each additional post I'd beak down media censorship, propaganda, and how that system works, as well as how it started and came to be what it is today. From there I'd move on to the grand narrative of capitalism, authority, hierarchy, and their illegitimacy....as well as myths about "human nature" since this seems to be the reigning excuse for why we need systems based on violence and greed. I'd also briefly touch on other systems of economics, the nature of freedom and equality and a little history of revolution. Finally, I'll propose solutions, since thats what its all about, and hopefully some of you will have ideas and input as well. If your reading this and you think this is a good idea, let me know, and I'll get started. Maybe we can bring the "dread" and revolution back to dreadlocks...