April 1, 2011

My conversation with Tom

Synchronicity Whisperweb

My conversation with Tom
Why corporate journalism is goverment journalism resp.
why Mike and Matt Taibbi, for instance, work for the state corporation as its agents

Wikipedia on Indonesia:
"The government takes control of the state corporation under one single ministry, the Ministry of State Enterprises act like the CEO of a holding company. Some of the government-owned corporations are ..."

And apropos Indonesia (@ 21 min):

William) Toy is a bad word because, as I said, they killed million and millions of people.

Harold) Millions?

William) Oh sure. In the revolution in Indonesia, where the CIA played a major role in fomenting, millions of people were killed. So millions is not an overstate, there is no question about that.
But it's more than just the casualties in the overt wars: Generally, because the mission is to support the American commercial apparatus and the multinational corporations and so on, you will end up having the CIA as an instrument keeping oligopolies in power in almost every country where they operate. And what that will generally mean is that the majority of the people, sometimes the vast majority of the people in those countries live in misery so that the companies and organizations that support the government that we keep in power can do well.
So while the CIA's mission in that country might not be make the lifes of 90 percent of the people miserable, what they do will have the effect of making the lifes of 90 percent of the people miserable.

10/21'10 Clint Richardson on The Rabbit Hole with Edward Mock (pt 2), and he's on fire but in a cool way

@ 37 min) I basically love Walter to death and if you sit there and talk to him you can understand a lot of what he's talking about. I – whether it's a curse or a gift, I don't know – can take something really complicated and turn it into something that anybody can understand.
So, I guess the point of this is just to be able to give it to anybody and say we've got a problem, watch this, trust me, by the time you finish watching this ... I mean, it blows my mind and I'm the one who made it.
All I want to do is inside a peaceful revolution that just simply takes the money back and makes our life so beautiful and a livable quality of life, everybody should be high on the hog right now. There should be no hunger, there should be no taxes, I mean everything is just right there before the taking, but we've got to actually do it.
And, you know, if that's my legacy in life, I would die happy, you know. That's basically my cup of tea here, right? I'm not in this for profit, because profit, you know, all this usury that goes on – that's what interest is, it's usury – every religion in the world is against it, except one of course. You're basically talking about pure, blatant, harsh, horrible usury that's been going on for all this time. And it's so simple to get rid of this. Like I said, these corporations they can just be dissolved. These fonds, these moneys can be taken back. [...]

He's charging also, he is trying to raise money like three dollars a view, which is ridiculously cheap, to actually be able to fund his live, because he's been so beaten down by the government for trying to expose this. And I'm afraid the same thing is gonna happen to me, to be honest, so ... You know, I don't have an agenda, that's the beautiful thing about it, and I don't know if anybody has ever really felt that feeling before to actually do something completely charitable, something completely not for profit, just for the good of their fellow people. I don't think most people can comprehend what that feels like, but I'm imagining a society that is based on that. I'm imagining a society that is based on rewarding employees for honesty and integrity instead of being the best thief. You know, the best of the best of traitors go work for the government, the worst of the worst of them go work for these trading companies like ... anyway. I just want to see things change because the way we're going this whole thing is gonna be over in no time at all and we're gonna have nothing to show for it. We're gonna be a third world country and all this money, and all these corporations that had built up all these fonds, stolen our money, they're already moving out of the country. Corporations are moving out of the country.

@ 42 min) Monsanto is definitely a Fortune 500 company, and what does that mean?
Well, it means government has collective ownership of that company. When Monsanto makes purchase, like it purchases Blackwater, well, guess who approves that purchase? The stockholders, the board of directors who is basically elected by collective government. (11/16'10 "What is JP Morgan Chase?") [...]

In the State of Delaware 60 percent at least, it's probably up by now, but 60 percent of Fortune 500 company and 50 percent of all corporations in the U.S. are incorporated within the State of Delaware, that small little state. The reason is and the reason why most banks are incorporated there is because they have no or very limited usury laws. In other words, the amount of interest that a bank can charge on a credit card is pretty much off-limited in Delaware, whereas in California or some other states they have what's called usury laws. In other words, you can only charge so much interest before it starts becoming a criminal element. Well, the problem is, any corporation that operates outside of the State of Oregon, in other words, anything that's incorporated in Delaware and is a national bank – so they have Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, all have banks in every state – they're still only subject to the laws of Delaware. That's why, even if your state might have usury laws that say you can only charge 9 percent on the credit card, you get a card and all of the sudden you have a 30 percent interest rate, because their laws are based on Delaware laws. That is the definition of a foreign corporation: any corporation that's incorporated in another state and operating inside of your state.
So "foreign corporation" is kind of a misleading term. The other thing is about Delaware is you don't have to be a citizen of the Unites States, of Delaware and you don't even have to give your name, you can be anonymous and start a corporation in Delaware. That's how loose Delaware is, that's why everybody flocks in there. They also don't have to pay income tax, so none of these corporations that were making all this money out of us are paying any income tax because they're only bound by Delaware law even though they're operating in your state. You start to see, you know, there's all these little things like that, you start to see this – I mean, what else can you call it but a conspiracy, right?

Back to the Blackwater thing: Of course, by government proxy the main sharehoulders voted – in other words, government voted – that Monsanto should aquire Blackwater in the future, probably because they're mercenaries. You know, this farmer is planting seeds that are natural and they also have Monsanto seeds, so we must go in and we must destroy him. Because if word gets out that genetically modified seeds are bad and foods are bad, and this farmer over here is selling natural products – no, we gotta do something about this. Everything boils down to this. Why are things that aren't food being sold as food? Why are humans the only animals stupid enough to eat a McDonald's Hamburger bun because it's not food, it's not qualified as food.
You know, Kentucky Fried Chicken had to stop calling their chicken "chicken" because of the way they process their chickens. They cheer them up with so many drugs that it's no longer considered chicken, 'cause more than fifty percent of it are these hormons and fatty tissues that shouldn't be even there even in the first place.
So all of the sudden "Kentucky Fried Chicken" becomes "KFC". But who is regulating this? The government!
So the conflict of interest factor in this all is so astounding you can't even begin to imagine.

So the regulators of Monsanto are government. And then you have Obama hiring Monsanto's main auditor to the FDA, an then he quits the FDA after, you know, he writes a bill at Monsanto, joins the FDA, passes his own bill, and then gets rehired with a lot more money at Monsanto. Governments are the corporations, corporations are the government – there is no fine line here anymore to speak of, because the regulatory body of the corporations is the same people who own through stock investment the corporations.
So nothing is gonna surprise me anymore. Of course Monsanto is gonna buy a private army: they have to enforce all this crazy stuff. Of course the Supreme Court as a government body, as a private corporate body is going to say that companies like Monsanto can patent life, can patent breast cancer. Monsanto has the patent on breast cancer! No one can do research on breast cancer without Monsanto's permission.
So, 40 percent of the gens in your body are now patented by pharmaceutical companies. OK, that's the corporation that did that because it's beneficial to its corporately held stock, you know. The health care bill is another example. The health care bill, "Obama Care", is going to ensure by law that trillions, and trillions, and trillions of dollars go to pharmaceutical and health care companies. What is that mean? That means that their stock investements are gonna go up, up, up. You start to understand what I'm saying, right?

Hey Tommy, do you remember our little chat some days ago?

You know, I asked you how much you actually were decentralized to possibly get an entrance to your webspace from you and then we spoke about half an hour with each other about several things. I mean, I don't recall everything that came to our minds that day but what's important for me was that short exchange of ideas on what could be done in this situation today, what could be a real exit or a good starting point for a solution here and now. You suggested the nationalization of the central banks (and something else which has escaped my mind unfortunately), while I said something like what we need above all is a media revolution, right? Those were, in my understanding, our best shots, so to speak, right? The basic outcome one could say of your research over the last years and mine. But there is a little more to it from my side that I'd like to share with you and the "synchronicity whisperweb" members with the intent to hear your and everyone else's thoughts on this, what probably could be seen as kind of a middle way or trade-off between our differing positions. Okay, here it comes.

From my piety-oriented point of view, Richard's project of intellectually outgrowing the cabal of the top culture creators, his aim of jointly unmasking the strategy of the top social engineers is only realistic through a fundamental media revolution: a fundamental shift from the current purposefully controversial, confusion-instigating, dialectically fragmented chaos-causing nature of corporate and conspiracy media towards a strictly intercepting, clearly and consequently mediating, consciously unspectacular general focus that is first and foremost or better solely dedicated to produce basic understanding, well-grounded understanding, which means it should be replicable from all sorts of perspectives and standpoints as well as applicable by everybody, in principle.
Just to be absolutely clear, nothing is realistic without de-corporatized, de-bureaucratized, de-militarized media.
And I think we have to find out yet what exactly belongs to such a concept of generating mutual thinking together.

"To put it positively, ego-istic unfoldment and alter-istic development are expressible in an 'argument'-form, drawing on many points as many premises to clinch and close off with a single conclusion. In contrast, mutual thinking together does not argue but play with arguments, back and forth, brainstorming together, reciprocally provoking new ideas and standpoints, and having fun doing so. It is this process of playing with arguments, among others, that typifies thinking together.
Such togetherness-thinking is a sort of music-making.

Music is created by three parties, the composer, the performer(s), and the audience, mutually dependent. Composer, performer(s), and audience always act and behave in terms of the music and for nothing else. Lacking in either one, there would be no music."
Kuang-Ming Wu 1998: On the "Logic" of Togetherness – A Cultural Hermeneutic

Now, in 2009, I had this inspiration that maybe the biggest revolutionary shift in human history that could happen in 2012 was when the first Freeman on the Land would open his own bank, you know, and I left that notion as a commentary on The Investigative Journal, where Greg Szymanski, who by the way had interviewed Walter Burien yet eight years ago or so, was promoting John Harris by republishing his It's An Illusion lecture.
Then, some day in 2010, it hit me: What would if you had a bank which is completely transparent? And I mean not only transparent to its customers but transparent to all sides, transparent to anybody. Because, you know, to the rulers that be, the untouchable top managers of the main streams of public opinion (being thereby the rulers of the minds – something like the Exerzitienmeister (spiritual director) or superior auditor of the spirit or the soul of a certain society, who as well as, of course, rule over the bodies, constituting the economic dimension of life), all bank accounts of every registered, state-owned citizen are already transparent for years, if not centuries, and that globally. So why not making financial assets in the same way public on the web like we do it already with our convictions or learning processes via online diaries, community forums and all kinds of virtual playgrounds.
A lot of ideas are whirling around in cyberspace right now, Servan Keondjian's is just one of them.
And last weekend then I discovered the in my eyes "absolutely fabulous" Clint Richardson with his excellent Corporation Nation interviews, where among a lot of other things the following was to be found.

From the same broadcast as above @ 2 min – Richardson on the question "What can you do to take action?")

My first instinct is to refer people to Walter Burien. Now, if you go to CAFR1.com, Walter puts his phone number on the website and he feeds calls from anybody who wants to call him because he's looking for someone who will start what he calls a "Tax Retirement Fund", which is basically modelled after the pension fund idea but with total transparency and laws that say [...] the idea behind would be to lessen the amount of government employees and basically to reward government employees [...] for saving money and for downsizing government as much as possible and investing all this money into the economy, and the local economy specifically.
And there will be laws because people would vote on this so it would become law. And then the law would state that a certain percentage has to go to local companies, local economy, whatever they take. And what we are talking about here is laws that make everything completely transparent. So if someone does something even remotely sneaky or transfers funds without accounting for it, they're out like that. Not only are they out, they're in federal prison for extortion and theft. I mean, that's how serious this guy is. Walter was a commodity trading advisor, one of the top traders in Wallstreet, so he knows the market like the back of his hand. I highly, highly recommend anybody who has questions to call him and really just dig into it.
If you are not familiar with some of the trading terms, you're gonna have to ask a lot of questions, but this guy is the preeminent expert in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and it's where I learned the basics. Now, in order to get the actual real concept how much money we are talking which is at least 100, if not 200, 300 trillion dollars in investments across the country. I mean that's more money than anybody can possibly imagine really.

Suddenly it turnes out that the leading (illuminative) expert on the exact mode of operation of the Corporation Nation works on the same idea ... Bingo! But where he thinks about a suitable design for direct economic intervention I am more interested in a movement-oriented application, you know. Not necessarily in a strict political "truth movement", but rather in a general media movement or better media integration movement with the main political implication of de-corporatizing the memestreams of public opinion. In fact, I believe, if we don't find a way to stop this post-"9/11" maelstrom of two antagonistically spinning main opinion streams, we will never have a chance to prevent the world-wide implementation of satellite-aided microchip implants, as their ultimate goal, according to Aaron Russo, with a Jesuit "Litvinenko option" for unlimited and eternal God-like control.

What I'm doing therefore is trying to imagine a transparency bank as the core or the foundation of sort of an accumulative movement of independent, decentralized media entrepreneurs like our "four knights" on Richard's Peace Revolution round table, and wouldn't Richard be the perfect candidate with his professional background in financial and software business to take the lead of such kind of bank-based media aggregation project?

This is where Jon Stewart's recommendation from October 2004 of finding an arbiter (11/11'09) comes in:

"Why can't you hire people that care about the truth? You know them, I know them, they're good. You got people on blogs that are fact-checking as things happen.
Now, some of those people are conspiracy theorists, some of them are really smart. Have somebody at the center of it who can be an arbiter of what's real and what's not. And make that network reactive to the devastating game of strategy that's being played in Washington.
I think it would make a shit-load of money, and not only that, you'd be able to sleep at night."

The greater idea behind this notion of choosing arbiters or mediators in my understanding is the major shift from electing one's favorite administrative representatives (politicians) to elect the top journalists. As I said to Jakob Steen Madsen recently: "Imagine our national top television journalists when we could vote them out of office ..." You know, something along these lines, Tom. See it rather as a first chord in an attempt of music-making in the sense of K.-M. Wu's Logic of Togetherness than an argument of philosophical proportions.

As regards Kenneth's posting on the latest street activism of Charlie Veitch, the first thing I would demonstrate for would be an open debate or let's say serene public talks between guys like Richard Grove, Clint Richardson, Mark Passio, Jan Irvin, Paul Verge, or Brett Veinotte, which I would "put on the chessboard" for a good gambit, so to speak, with "journalisticians", "politicians", "scienticians", or any other kind of "experticians" like Brian Williams, Bill Clinton, Noam Chomsky, for instance, or Van Romero and Philip Zelikow etc., even with Jon Stewart and other corporate comics.
In other words, all self-declared "info warriors" like Alex Jones and his offsprings or blindfolded preachers like Eric Phelps and his followers are nothing more than the flipside or what Stephen Colbert, the "proud tool of Viacom", marked as the "formidable opponent" of the as "*icians" tagged, unmasked opinion makers/propaganda soldiers and therefore almost completely useless, because they mostly have contra-productive effects.

There's much more to say about, but I hope I got my idea across so far, more or less appropriately.

"The United States has changed from a constitutional republic to a corruptocracy.
A corruptocracy is a word that I 'coined' to describe our country. A corruptocracy is any government that was founded on democratic ideals and has a founding document like the U.S. Constitution, but has become corrupt in almost every aspect. The key to understanding a corruptocracy is that the corrupted government continues to pretend that it is a government for all the People."
R. Van Conoley: "400 Americans have the same wealth as 155 million Americans."