Bacevich, Chomsky, Wolff and . . . Dr. Steven Greer? More on metaphor and conspiracy

            Have to say I am out of the conspiracy zone aided in no small part by reading/listening to Andrew Bacevich, Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff (BCW).  While conspiracists seek to unveil machinations behind the scenes I feel that BCW highlight concepts that stand in the open but are easily brushed aside or not given popular attention.  They – BCW – highlight concepts that require a little introspection: heck, even require just being less of a consumer (go ahead and say it).  They provide analysis of the foundation of the American way of life be it the economic, political or moral aspect.

            It is as though conspiracy guys know this – they know something ain’t right and in some cases have documents to back up what they say.  Unfortunately, the veil they pull aside is a self-made one, not the one woven by corporate-capitalist propaganda.  Listening to or even reading Chomsky for five minutes will provide a person with enough shocking, hidden-in-plain-view facts to perhaps permanently alter their perception.  His facts are grounded in reality: which will always seem quotidian held up against x-files which he doesn’t dabble in.

            What of pioneering and intelligent Dr. Steven Greer?  An extra-terrestrial audience was present to view the first moon landing?  There you go: he said this.  He does have sources but often they are off the record.  However, a lot of his quotes are from testimony and many of his testifiers have legit provenance.

            His take – that suppliers of traditional forms of energy do not want a free, clean energy to become available even though it could be made available – is definitely far-out when considered from an everyday person’s perspective.  The examples (for free energy) he brings out seem like they are the products of scammers if for any reason than they countervail scientific orthodoxy (which has shored up its defenses most solidly).  Greer states that one man’s invention was covered up, the inventor killed.  Greer and others often refer to Tesla.

            Used as a though experiment, yes, if we had free, clean, sustainable energy, we should switch to it – if we listen first to counterarguments for its restriction.  It seems a safer choice – free energy vs. climate change-inducing petroleum – but consequences so often prove to be unseen.

            For the thought experiment though, let’s be fortune tellers and say it will live up to its promise and provide energy for everyone which has the effect of greatly reducing suffering around the globe while even mitigating global warming.  Are corporations – say Exxon-Mobil, BP, General Electric, etc. – so evil that they would perpetrate a cover-up of a thing that would put them out of business?  Dang it if I want to say yes.

            Taken as a thought experiment, Greer’s take on things reveals a venal group of people that do have very great power.  In the end the concept of free energy may be taken as a metaphor for seeing the need to change the way we live on earth but wanting to keep our level of material well-being while also removing first-world guilt by letting everyone else join our club.

            The real cure is harder.  We listen to Chomsky and Wolff and recognize the need for collective, popular demonstration/action.  Even Bacevich would appreciate this.  But then Occupy, as a significant, visible actor is on hiatus.  But still, the United States has a history of people organizing and fighting hard to stand up for themselves.

            I think, though, of what Chomsky calls the new spirit of the times: people being selfish and living in a way that embodies the consumer ethos.  Bacevich understands this to a fault saying that morality may only mean working hard and being a good family member – no involvement in mass social movements required.  Ah, what to do?

Bacevichian theater and our reality

To listen to Republicans talk about Democrats, to listen to Democrats talk about Republicans, if you take their rhetoric at face value you would reach the conclusion that these two parties are polar opposites, that they believe in fundamentally different things.  But most of that is theater.  The truth is that the similarities between Republicans and Democrats on very important issues are far more important in determining the substance of our politics than the differences.  And in that sense the two-party system really becomes a one-party system. 

                                                                                                     

                                                                                                      - Andrew Bacevich

 

            Re: The theater of elections (see minute 6 of Bacevich talking with Lawrence R. Velvel): perhaps we/politicians spend so much money on elections because, at the national level for sure or for sure in states more populated than Idaho, we/politicians are creating our reality.  How much higher stake in the outcome of some event can one have?  Masters of reality.  Politicians and the media create a dream state that we live in: we are paying well or having money spent on us in order to weave this fantasy.  Even if one says that any reality can find its own justification, you must agree the amount of money spent speaks of the immensity of the task. 

            May I try and convince you to vote in a system that you know has serious flaws? – that is the question that successful election campaigns must answer.  At stake, to state it summarily, is the corporate-backed, consumerist, money-making world.  Actors from this quarter are pumping money in and keeping the system alive because it seems to be a successful way to extend and legitimate our/their reality.

            By competing against, say, an incumbent, the challenger may speak of problems, of areas where he could do better.  But in the realm of Republican versus Democrat the field of combat is narrowly constrained and third party voices are rarely heard.  This is Bacevich’s Incumbent Party, the Republicans and the Democrats different wings of a single party/reality.

Befriending Tillman: On finishing the first half of Krakauer's Where Men Win Glory

            Reading Where Men Win Glory by Jon Krakauer (one of my favorites) – about half way through and finding it hard to put down.  Very good.  Before starting it ran into some conspiracy theories about Pat Tillman’s death while on YouTube which I won’t link up to here.  Things saying he was assassinated because of his burgeoning critical views of our involvement in Afghanistan.  Then I went and spent time on Google Earth looking at that region and then thought of Krakauer’s book which was never super-interesting when it came out.  Oh, and also the football season had hit the playoffs a few weeks ago when I bought a copy of the text.

            Pat Tillman quit his job in the NFL as a safety/clock-cleaner at the end of the 2001 season, the season during which the Twin Towers were taken down.  He was good at what he did.  Years ago, during the time when events transpired that Krak’s book talks about I, as were many, struck by Pat’s decision: giving up a successful career to go get shot at.  After reading the book the decision is understandable.  Turns out he is one of the most interesting people I have met/read about ever.  A super-athlete but also very educated, who had a will to always learn.  He was always reading something.  He was challenging his mind as he challenged his body with the purpose of staying sharp.  When his dog-owning colleagues were playing golf in the offseason, the cat-owning Tillman was cliff-jumping, ice-climbing, running marathons and competing in triathlons.

            Why the appeal of sports?  Krakauer says that Tillman appreciated football for the tremendous workload it demanded.  It also provided tangible success, success achieved among other athletes who are at the top of their games.  9/11 changed the field where meaningful success may be achieved for Tillman.  One big question with which I am approaching my reading of this book is, Why are sports so interesting?  Is it detrimental to be in their thrall?  Is it okay to keep sports as an occasionally indulged in pastime? 

            The reason for these questions is the critique of sports by those that say sports blind people to what is going on in society.  Chomsky defines sports as something to divert the attention of the masses so that the world can be run according to the wishes of the elites.  I won’t argue with him but still I think it is possible to enjoy sports and at the same time have a critical understanding of the world.

            Tillman got out of sports.  In a metaphorical sense he was sports: sport reflected on what it is to be sports and deciding a change was necessary.  Self-reflection was nothing new to Tillman – he kept a journal, read a lot and sought out challenging discussions with people.  After joining the Army he recognized the folly and cynicism behind the wish to bring democracy to Iraq.  The book starts with the situation that led to his death – by then he was in Afghanistan on the trail of bin Laden, the mission he joined up for.  He was there for personal reasons; personal reasons that where tied up with reasons pertaining to duty to country. 

            Krakauer had access to Pat’s journals.  The journal entries are at times quoted at length and are amazing to read.  Tillman wrestled with his decision to join, recognizing that he joined for principled reasons but also because of a deeper, more passion-based purpose.  These deeper reasons are the seat of morality for all of us. 

            Can’t wait to keep reading.

Eschew obfuscation: thoughts on Feinstein's Shadow World

            Recently read the chapter “Buckling to Bandar” in Shadow World by Andrew Feinstein.  Definitely provided some pertinent food for thought re: ethics.  My questions can relate to any/current instances where governments change the rules for those they owe their power to.  Or I mean those that the government serves.  Ah ethics, what a beguiling subject.  Consider an arms deal that began in that magical decade of the eighties:

            What does it mean when a gov’t as large as the United Kingdom’s buckles to business interests?  At issue is a multibillion pound arms contract with the gov’t of Saudi Arabia that saw delivery of materiel in exchange for oil begin in the eighties.  The most recent contract in the ongoing deal began in 2006.  The industry and gov’t both stressed how important the deal was for jobs and for security.  On the flip side, the investigators – the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) – said their mandate went beyond such considerations.  So what about national interest, said the SFO: they were investigating in the name of a higher principle.  The gov’t and the Defenc(s)e contractor involved, BAE, felt national interests superseded this principle.

            Allegedly Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia communicated to the UK that if the investigation was not halted his state would reject the deal causing 1) UK workers to miss out on jobs, 2) forcing SA to shop elsewhere which wouldn’t be difficult, and 3) potentially allowing would-be terrorists to take hold in the momentary vacuum where SA was without the latest technology therefore not allowing them to pull the strings they usually do in the Middle East.

            So, I know, minutiae of overseas corruption.  It is interesting just to consider as an ethical case though – and set aside how the US could be doing (does do?) similar things.  In the al Yamamah deal discussed above (and yeah, Margaret Thatcher’s son was involved (getting paid) and the deal has been called “who’s your mama?”) the gov’t seemed to re-write a subscribed to ethical system that had had seen the creation of the SFO.

            What does it mean when an ethical system is revised or when it comes with an asterisk?  What if your continued existence as a person or a country is put in jeopardy if you or your nation can’t allow a little wiggle-room in matters ethical?  Does it change one to not live up to self-decided ethical standards?  Or is it just a needed revision?  Maybe the ends justify the means and staying alive trumps any way of life that could extinguish that life, however disreputable it makes one.

            Where does the appeal to ethics come from?  Well, religions supply many ethical systems.  Considering how religion can set such high standards it is perhaps understandable why people and people acting through gov’t fail to comply. 

            To conclude I would argue that re-establishing one’s ethical guidelines does change one.  As I’ve discussed before I am not exactly speaking from a religious perspective.  But I believe that is why asking forgiveness is a built-in feature of (at least) Christianity.  The new person, or state, no longer agrees that the old ethics are correct and therefore do not need to seek forgiveness for a wrong never committed.

Paging Drs. Chomsky and Greer

When we democratize these technologies and allow them to be available throughout the world, we will have to put a seat at the geo-political table for the people of Africa, the people of India, the people of China, the people of Southeast Asia, the people of Central America – all around the world.  And there are people who don’t want to share that power.

 – Dr. Steven Greer, "The Promise of New Energy"

 

            I think there is a connection between what may however pejoratively be called left wing ideas and the ideas of a gamut of conspiracy theorists.  I think they are both going after core injustices, just from different perspectives.  At first glance it is easy to say that some on the left are dealing with facts, while conspiracy people – not having or not understanding or not willing to engage with facts – must use metaphor: the amorphous realm of the Illuminati is in point of fact the global corporations with their interlocking directorates and their revolving doors intimately linking them to halls of political power.  Instead of the government covering up extraterrestrial technology that could cleanly alleviate an energy crisis and feed the world’s poor what the government does hide it hides in plain sight – legislative decisions aiding entrenched interests, government policies enacted on the sly that only members of the left versed in such tactics understand and try to communicate to the society at large.  In many respects what those on the left and those espousing conspiracy popularly receive is the same: inattention or ridicule.

            Is this unfair to conspiracy people – me saying that they are unable to deal with facts and have to resort to a WWE-like description of reality?  To counter I would say that conspiracy-people’s willingness to think so far outside of the norm is a boon.  I think some researches are on to some topics that even the left are unable to conceptualize.  Steven Greer’s ethics are comparable to Noam Chomsky’s when it comes to compassion for the world- and domestic-poor and the desire to provide them a fair chance.  Both outside of the mainstream, Dr. Greer’s solutions are rooted in pragmatism as much as Dr. Chomsky’s are, albeit Greer is calling on government disclosure of all in know re: ETs and ET technology that would enable us to provide energy for the world at relatively no cost.

            My favorite thing, and the thing that makes me feel vindicated, is when there is a cross-over between the left and the so-called conspiracy theorists.  Chris Hedges showing up on Alex Jones’ show and having them come the same conclusions was terrific to watch.  Russia Today’s Max Keiser sort of blurs the line to some degree: esp. see his blueprint for bringing down JP Morgan – "the biggest financial terrorist on Wall Street”. 

            In the end both camps try to live in truth as they understand the truth to be.  Perhaps it is the various backgrounds of the various people involved and their respective, sundry followers simply having different capacities for conceptualizing the world.  I think the two sides may learn from each other – why not?  An even more holistic approach can only make them stronger.

Cormac versus Drunvalo: thoughts on the future

            It is always interesting to start a book that you have preconceived notions about.  Interesting to see how it conforms to your prejudices.  More interestingly still to see how it diverges, becomes its own work: it winds down its narrative path and carves into concrete, mapping over your pre-impressions.

            As in fiction, in life.  Besides having a sweet name, Drunvalo Melchizedek also has a wild take on the world, albeit one that I am only glancingly familiar with.  He has been interviewed for many an alt podcast and has his own Q & A series.  His take on things draws from historical antecedents and can be loosely (maybe comprehensively) characterized as New Age. 

            In the episode of his Q & A show hyperlinked above Drunvalo discusses his views of a forthcoming, um, well, change in the world.  Yes, it is related to the Mayan calendar.  Listening to his conception of change put me in mind of another recent view of the end of the world, namely that provided by one Cormac McCarthy.

            Although books are generally better than the movie, the recent re-creation of Cormac’s The Road does nearly complete justice to the text.  The story and feel are the same in both but would still urge someone to read the novel over seeing the film: McCarthy’s prose is unparalleled.  Poetic.  Evocative of (his hero) Melville and of the Bible.  Read Blood Meridian.  Read Suttree.  The Road approaches these previous works in quality and provides a grim background in front of which he presents his bleak tale.

            For the sake of comparison, let’s even the playing field.  What if Drunvalo’s ideas where fictional.  What if Cormac’s The Road willingly being prophetic?  What types of tales are they?  Which is more enjoyable?  In which real or fictional incarnation? 

            An end of light (Drunvalo) versus an end in nuclear winter-dark (The Road)?  This is not quite a fair comparison – not all will go unscathed in Drunvalo’s vision.  Indeed, significant numbers may meet their end.  Have to say it is a little discomfiting to hear this laid out by Drunvalo (I think it is as fun to type his name as it is to say it).  A sort of new age-elect will be the ones to make it through.

            The Road delivers equal opportunity destruction.  I suppose I am making this assumption, but believe it right – this future is a godless realm, no faith to protect anyone.  Compared to the fiction of Stephen King’s The Stand, The Road has no metaphysical elements except for contemplation of the timeless (unanswerable) question as to how it is man is capable of such acts.  So far it hasn’t happened – environmental degradation notwithstanding.  (Long-term environmental problems have a chronic character that unfortunately slips by unseen in front of man’s acute-problem-only-seeing eyes.  In my opinion.)

            In the end, The Road is fiction – it does not seek to claim prescience, only tell a story.  Drunvalo, though, does grant his listeners a mapped future.  There will be much travail, he is sorry to report, but there will also be unimaginable transcendence.  Comparing the two, the fiction is grim and the revealed-to-Drunvalo truth is beautiful.  Does my reality have to make me happy and does my fiction have to make me sad?  In order to fact check: guess we have to wait till the future to see which is right.

The flesh you so fancifully fry - a note on food

            Recently changed up the way I eat – another experiment testament to these protean times: using food perhaps as a way to find a mooring?  Seems like folks today try diets like trying on clothes, new fads that people try then discard.  We can already date a photo by what people are wearing in it – so too with food?  (Just speaking of clothes, I swear people in the eighties look as though they are from a far different time than even people you see in pictures or films from the fifties or sixties or even seventies. Could this happen today?  If it did it wouldn’t be the same.)

            Food is undoubtedly important.  What interests about the range of diets available is that there is presumably a best way to eat.  That is what all the lifestyle diets out there are trying to achieve.  A way to eat to achieve optimal health for the duration of your life and also to perform and work at exceptional levels.  I feel like my recent dietary shuffle is because of these aims.  Fear of death?  Is that something lurking in the background when we make such decisions?  On the surface I say/think that my choice is for the former reasons.

            To disclaim though: everyone is different so there are probably multiple smart ways to eat.  I mean some people constitutionally can’t eat some things.  Others choose not eat certain things based on ethical decisions.  Any time you enter the realm of morality, though, you encounter uneven terrain and concealing fogs.  Re: meat: saying you shouldn’t eat animal flesh because it is wrong is one thing while saying you shouldn’t eat it because it is unhealthy is a beast of another pelt.  I think these two ideas get a little conflated.  On the moral side: good, I respect that choice/have experimented with it myself.  If you don’t partake of meat because you think it is murder (bless this man! (eighties, again . . .)) then you have thought about it, placed yourself in the hooves or what have you of others.  Regardless of religious non-affiliation or whatever compassion is virtuous.

            The other side of this meat topic is where the murkiness lies.  That you shouldn’t eat it because it is unhealthy runs firstly into the problem, previously stated, that we are all physiologically different.  If it is true that different people respond differently to different food then there can’t be one ultimate diet.  This is Platonism at its finest and it attempts to steamroll uniqueness.  Destroying uniqueness in the name of a higher order is usually the job of institutionalized faith.  Saying one diet is the best appeals to capital-T Truth.  Unfortunately this truth lies well within the murky domain of morality, with its obfuscatory mists and mirage-like substance.

            So that is the grain of salt (literally, and Himalayan at that) I take as I explore gastronomic alternatives.  Despite critiquing what Plato thought I still think an unexamined life is not worth living.  I also think it is easy to go through life without examining what we eat.  Oh no, what if I try different ways of eating but don’t find the way that  is best for me?  Worth it to try.