Betrayal V at New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 08-30-05
Betrayal V
Brian Lamb interviewed George Bush (41) one last time, (one hopes), a few months ago. It was only an hour long interview but it seemed, as with all Mr. Lamb’s interviews, to last much, much longer. (Mr. Lamb learned his interviewing technique from years of taking depositions. (But he never seemed to realize that though people have to sit through depositions, they do not have to endure Mr. Lamb’s interviews. Where did you go to school? What was your major? What was your grade point average? Do you have any letters of recommendation from your professors? Which ones?))
However Vietnam did not come up for discussion until just a few minutes before the merciful end. Mr. Bush put it out that he thought the second most important lesson of the Vietnam War, for America, was that when we go to war we should never stop short of victory. And what was the most important lesson?, Mr. Lamb asked.
When we go to war we should support the government, the troops and the war, Mr. Bush declaimed with resolute finality.
And it was indeed final for then Mr. Lamb brought the interview to an end, along with, one hopes, Mr. Lamb’s career as an interviewer.
Here you have in a nutshell the absurdity, the full moronic nature of American public life.
Isn’t that just the point? What are we supposed to do if our ruling elites decide to administer a war, not trying to win, just administering it, year after year, grinding down the conscript army, simply to protect themselves? Not protect themselves from the enemy! No, not at all. Just administering the war to protect themselves politically!
What if we had an elite so alienated from the people, pursuing its own interests after 20,000 of our young men were killed, and then continued on to administer the war for political cover, so they could not be said to have “lost Vietnam,” as another 20,000 died? And then still thinking only of itself, following out its own political logic heedless of the consequences which befall those “others,” the people, in the flyover territories, as another 20,000 of our brothers the conscripts were killed?
Can you imagine such a bastard elite running a nation? Can you imagine an elite so removed, so alienated from its own country that it could go on year after year pursuing its own selfish interests? Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine a duller, dumber, more mind numbing interviewer than Mr. Lamb? Well, no. But he typifies the American public discourse.
For Mr. Lamb did not ask George Bush (41) what then should we do if our government were to fall into the hands of such a calloused elite, so indifferent to the people as our sons and brothers and fathers and uncles were sacrificed by the politicians in Washington?
The whole point of the problem, ‘What then should we do?’ is left unasked. Un-thought even. And this is absolutely typical of American public life, the George Bushes: Things should be a certain way, and we should therefore act a certain way.
But what if the circumstances are not that way? What if the assumptions are wrong?
‘Well, they should be.’ is the only answer the George Bushes have for us.
And what makes America so devastatingly, so mind numbingly empty, is that we have no one to ask such inconvenient questions for us. (Yes. Good bye Mr. Lamb.)
For example the current occupant of the Oval Office wants us to consider how to save the Social Security System. We have previously described how the “system” is arranged:
The top 20% of “recipients” have non Social Security incomes of over $75,000, control 50% of the national income, 60% of the financial assets, but all of this is not enough, we must add every month additional payments, which are taken from the wages of 3.3 workers, whose “contributions” are taken from their less than $35,000 (the national median) incomes, to buy the support of the elite 20%.
This transfer of income, from these lower class workers to these wealthy individuals we are told is the crowning achievement of the “New Deal.” And if the unfairness of the “system” is pointed out, (assume the conversation is allowed to progress that far), if we strip away the lies about “contributions” and “trust funds” and “lock boxes,” (just suppose the discussion is permitted to go that far), we have it explained to us that we have to pay these rich people because if we did not transfer the incomes of these much poorer workers to these wealthy old bustards, then these rich people, the whole class of rich powerful people who control our country, would destroy the Social Security System.
We have been here before. What land is this? Vietnam.
In other words the argument will boil down to just this explanation, (assume a democracy in which open discussion is possible, (use your imagination)):
This income transfer from the poor to the rich is a bribe paid to the elite. It is a fee which we must pay to the elite so they will allow the Social Security System to continue. For if the elite did not get its end it would destroy the Social Security System and no one, not even the 66% who would be in poverty without Social Security; no one would get any assistance.
And if you are thinking no, no, our elite is not as cold hearted, as selfish, as cruel as this, then I say: remember Vietnam. The unexamined assumptions. The unasked questions. The elite pursuing its own interests at the expense of the people, or at least at the expense of the conscripts.
(You can do such things with conscript armies. Grind them down, throw them away, for the conscript is a kind of slave army. (There is a difference. One can be ground down and constantly refreshed. One can be abused, sent on a fools mission for years, a decade. (But tell me, do you know how to command a professional army? Ever done that before? Or is your experience confined to slave armies?)))
As a consequence of our success in arms in the Twentieth Century we created a global system of free trade. And as a consequence of this free trade, (only made possible because of the People’s Navy), American workers have increasingly come under competition. (Victims of our success.) First manufacturing labor came under pressure as the produce of the world began to spill into our ports. And now as the process has continued more and more sectors have experienced this increasing competition. [Business Week Outsourcing Innovation] And many have complained about the dangers. [Paul Craig Roberts]
But it is useless. There is no discussion. Nothing.
I had thought that some statistics speak for themselves. 3.3 workers for every 1 retiree. What else need be said?
But the discussion is brought to a quick end. The Rush Limbaughs, as empty headed as can be imagined, pronouncing that “Social Security is not a welfare program” ends any possibility of honest discussion. Yesterday he advocated the “savings accounts” as a replacement for Social Security which he decried as a “forced savings program.”
In other words just backwards. The proposed accounts are “forced savings.” The state requires that you save the money. It is forced on you. The Social Security program is not now a savings program it is a welfare, income transfer, program. (Not just a transfer to the poor but from young workers to the top 20% whose incomes are over $75,000 as just explained, for the hundredth time.) Limbaugh does not know what he is talking about. But like Mr. Lamb he is absolutely typical of American public discourse.
Statistics:
84% of Californians can not afford the median priced home in the state.
10,000 applied for 400 jobs at Wal-Mart in Oakland.
$145,000 in debt for every citizen of the United States.
And what answers do we get?
That when we go to war we should support the government. That we should have “savings accounts” for Social Security, even though these will do nothing for the pending shortfall and the Democrats, in any case, are unwilling to discuss any reform. The Marin Senators think savings is “risky”.
We are encourage to believe that open borders is the proper response to the 3 million (Time magazine) who cross our southern border. (The number from other ports of entry is unknown.)
That exclusionary zoning is a necessity, even commendable. That the national debt is “just numbers on paper”, . . . That racial quotas are good. That High School graduation standards should be the same for the 50% of students whose IQ is less than 100, as they are for students with over 115 IQs who are less than 17% of the population. That a ‘college education’ is the solution to America’s labor problem, which is a lie for only 17% can succeed in college no matter how hard they “apply” themselves. That we can not “impose” a government, even a caretaker government during the transition for the writing of a new new “Iraqi” constitution. That we can only hold suspects for 72 hours in Iraq as in Kansas. That the 40 hour week is a “thing of the past.” That we must bribe the rich to pay the old age pensions to the poor.
As I say useless. No explanation. No reason.
What planet have I been living on? I saw the pictures of the famines and wars. I saw the photos of America in the Great Depression, of lynching, saw but thought what?
That we were all of us committed to doing something?
I’ll write about laser disks and then . . . kill myself. I will explain why self paced instruction, choice, is so important in education. Explain why “one size fits all” is wrong . . .
There is just this emptiness . . . they do not speak for themselves. They are mute. It is impossible to reach out across this void . . .
I see the thousands of visitors to this site and wonder that though many must no the truth about what has been done to me . . . nothing . . . but how could I have thought otherwise? Did I not see the piles of corpses? Did I not see the proud man’s contempt? I saw them spit on the others but thought? Not me?
Is this all not the same? There is no one.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Emptiness.
Lecture Notes: 08-30-05
Betrayal V
Brian Lamb interviewed George Bush (41) one last time, (one hopes), a few months ago. It was only an hour long interview but it seemed, as with all Mr. Lamb’s interviews, to last much, much longer. (Mr. Lamb learned his interviewing technique from years of taking depositions. (But he never seemed to realize that though people have to sit through depositions, they do not have to endure Mr. Lamb’s interviews. Where did you go to school? What was your major? What was your grade point average? Do you have any letters of recommendation from your professors? Which ones?))
However Vietnam did not come up for discussion until just a few minutes before the merciful end. Mr. Bush put it out that he thought the second most important lesson of the Vietnam War, for America, was that when we go to war we should never stop short of victory. And what was the most important lesson?, Mr. Lamb asked.
When we go to war we should support the government, the troops and the war, Mr. Bush declaimed with resolute finality.
And it was indeed final for then Mr. Lamb brought the interview to an end, along with, one hopes, Mr. Lamb’s career as an interviewer.
Here you have in a nutshell the absurdity, the full moronic nature of American public life.
Isn’t that just the point? What are we supposed to do if our ruling elites decide to administer a war, not trying to win, just administering it, year after year, grinding down the conscript army, simply to protect themselves? Not protect themselves from the enemy! No, not at all. Just administering the war to protect themselves politically!
What if we had an elite so alienated from the people, pursuing its own interests after 20,000 of our young men were killed, and then continued on to administer the war for political cover, so they could not be said to have “lost Vietnam,” as another 20,000 died? And then still thinking only of itself, following out its own political logic heedless of the consequences which befall those “others,” the people, in the flyover territories, as another 20,000 of our brothers the conscripts were killed?
Can you imagine such a bastard elite running a nation? Can you imagine an elite so removed, so alienated from its own country that it could go on year after year pursuing its own selfish interests? Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine a duller, dumber, more mind numbing interviewer than Mr. Lamb? Well, no. But he typifies the American public discourse.
For Mr. Lamb did not ask George Bush (41) what then should we do if our government were to fall into the hands of such a calloused elite, so indifferent to the people as our sons and brothers and fathers and uncles were sacrificed by the politicians in Washington?
The whole point of the problem, ‘What then should we do?’ is left unasked. Un-thought even. And this is absolutely typical of American public life, the George Bushes: Things should be a certain way, and we should therefore act a certain way.
But what if the circumstances are not that way? What if the assumptions are wrong?
‘Well, they should be.’ is the only answer the George Bushes have for us.
And what makes America so devastatingly, so mind numbingly empty, is that we have no one to ask such inconvenient questions for us. (Yes. Good bye Mr. Lamb.)
For example the current occupant of the Oval Office wants us to consider how to save the Social Security System. We have previously described how the “system” is arranged:
The top 20% of “recipients” have non Social Security incomes of over $75,000, control 50% of the national income, 60% of the financial assets, but all of this is not enough, we must add every month additional payments, which are taken from the wages of 3.3 workers, whose “contributions” are taken from their less than $35,000 (the national median) incomes, to buy the support of the elite 20%.
This transfer of income, from these lower class workers to these wealthy individuals we are told is the crowning achievement of the “New Deal.” And if the unfairness of the “system” is pointed out, (assume the conversation is allowed to progress that far), if we strip away the lies about “contributions” and “trust funds” and “lock boxes,” (just suppose the discussion is permitted to go that far), we have it explained to us that we have to pay these rich people because if we did not transfer the incomes of these much poorer workers to these wealthy old bustards, then these rich people, the whole class of rich powerful people who control our country, would destroy the Social Security System.
We have been here before. What land is this? Vietnam.
In other words the argument will boil down to just this explanation, (assume a democracy in which open discussion is possible, (use your imagination)):
This income transfer from the poor to the rich is a bribe paid to the elite. It is a fee which we must pay to the elite so they will allow the Social Security System to continue. For if the elite did not get its end it would destroy the Social Security System and no one, not even the 66% who would be in poverty without Social Security; no one would get any assistance.
And if you are thinking no, no, our elite is not as cold hearted, as selfish, as cruel as this, then I say: remember Vietnam. The unexamined assumptions. The unasked questions. The elite pursuing its own interests at the expense of the people, or at least at the expense of the conscripts.
(You can do such things with conscript armies. Grind them down, throw them away, for the conscript is a kind of slave army. (There is a difference. One can be ground down and constantly refreshed. One can be abused, sent on a fools mission for years, a decade. (But tell me, do you know how to command a professional army? Ever done that before? Or is your experience confined to slave armies?)))
As a consequence of our success in arms in the Twentieth Century we created a global system of free trade. And as a consequence of this free trade, (only made possible because of the People’s Navy), American workers have increasingly come under competition. (Victims of our success.) First manufacturing labor came under pressure as the produce of the world began to spill into our ports. And now as the process has continued more and more sectors have experienced this increasing competition. [Business Week Outsourcing Innovation] And many have complained about the dangers. [Paul Craig Roberts]
But it is useless. There is no discussion. Nothing.
I had thought that some statistics speak for themselves. 3.3 workers for every 1 retiree. What else need be said?
But the discussion is brought to a quick end. The Rush Limbaughs, as empty headed as can be imagined, pronouncing that “Social Security is not a welfare program” ends any possibility of honest discussion. Yesterday he advocated the “savings accounts” as a replacement for Social Security which he decried as a “forced savings program.”
In other words just backwards. The proposed accounts are “forced savings.” The state requires that you save the money. It is forced on you. The Social Security program is not now a savings program it is a welfare, income transfer, program. (Not just a transfer to the poor but from young workers to the top 20% whose incomes are over $75,000 as just explained, for the hundredth time.) Limbaugh does not know what he is talking about. But like Mr. Lamb he is absolutely typical of American public discourse.
Statistics:
84% of Californians can not afford the median priced home in the state.
10,000 applied for 400 jobs at Wal-Mart in Oakland.
$145,000 in debt for every citizen of the United States.
And what answers do we get?
That when we go to war we should support the government. That we should have “savings accounts” for Social Security, even though these will do nothing for the pending shortfall and the Democrats, in any case, are unwilling to discuss any reform. The Marin Senators think savings is “risky”.
We are encourage to believe that open borders is the proper response to the 3 million (Time magazine) who cross our southern border. (The number from other ports of entry is unknown.)
That exclusionary zoning is a necessity, even commendable. That the national debt is “just numbers on paper”, . . . That racial quotas are good. That High School graduation standards should be the same for the 50% of students whose IQ is less than 100, as they are for students with over 115 IQs who are less than 17% of the population. That a ‘college education’ is the solution to America’s labor problem, which is a lie for only 17% can succeed in college no matter how hard they “apply” themselves. That we can not “impose” a government, even a caretaker government during the transition for the writing of a new new “Iraqi” constitution. That we can only hold suspects for 72 hours in Iraq as in Kansas. That the 40 hour week is a “thing of the past.” That we must bribe the rich to pay the old age pensions to the poor.
As I say useless. No explanation. No reason.
What planet have I been living on? I saw the pictures of the famines and wars. I saw the photos of America in the Great Depression, of lynching, saw but thought what?
That we were all of us committed to doing something?
I’ll write about laser disks and then . . . kill myself. I will explain why self paced instruction, choice, is so important in education. Explain why “one size fits all” is wrong . . .
There is just this emptiness . . . they do not speak for themselves. They are mute. It is impossible to reach out across this void . . .
I see the thousands of visitors to this site and wonder that though many must no the truth about what has been done to me . . . nothing . . . but how could I have thought otherwise? Did I not see the piles of corpses? Did I not see the proud man’s contempt? I saw them spit on the others but thought? Not me?
Is this all not the same? There is no one.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Emptiness.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home