Thursday, May 6, 2010

Not Quite the Same Tea in Palin's "Tea Party"

I didn’t write about Sarah Palin’s visit to Boston last month at the end of her “Tea Party” tour, Wednesday, April 14th. Sometimes, the task of sifting the treasure from the trash in a story is just too overwhelming; whatever observations I have to share with my readers come not so much from the actual who, what, when, where, why and how of it, but from the examination of how our government manipulates our perceptions of those things. A recent conversation with a clerk in my neighborhood health food store got me thinking about these binary components of our political tableau and about how successful our government has been because of them. Tea time today seems an appropriate time to turn my attention to Ms. Palin’s stunt on the common and contribute a fresh, badly needed perspective.
We Americans are used to politicians who act as though they understand the issues of greatest concern to us when they so obviously don’t. This discrepancy in our political discourse is now so familiar it’s a foregone conclusion, and its rich history gives us much material to scrutinize – far more than can be analyzed in this little blog. What is immediately obvious is the fact that where this discrepancy exists, only those already in power – no matter their party affiliations – benefit from it. We, those without power, are left fighting not the true battles to see our problems taken up by our leaders, but rather, whomever those running for office pit against us with this contrivance: weak on crime and terrorism ‘liberals’ v. hawk neocons, anti-empire protesters v. oil and military bourgeoisie. Ms. Palin is certainly a politician. She knows that garnering the kind of support she needs to afford the type of pervasive PR every politician who’s selected by our corporate leaders needs in order to control the public discourse requires her to set forth talking points of no relevance to the average American. That’s how she proves her status as a quisling to her backers. Thus, her “Tea Party” tour. But she's also so much more than that.  With one breath, she’ll tell you America’s problem is big government, and then with another, she’ll assure you she wants a strong defense – in an age when the Pentagon’s budget is (and has been for quite some time) in excess of $75 billion dollars annually and all that money (which we borrow from Saudi Arabia and China at exorbitant interest rates) goes to – what else – big outsourced government, also known as the private security industry. The average American doesn’t see this contradiction reinforced in evening news broadcasts, or morning and afternoon talk shows, or popular non-fiction, so it believes it doesn’t exist, even though all it takes to see it is a willingness to do so.  Palin wants to keep the military industrial complex happy because those are the people who fund her campaign “war chest,” and so we may rightfully ask, "Is Sarah Palin merely a politician, or a soldier, herself, and, if so, what kind of soldier?”

“I trusted Obama to change the direction our country was headed, but so far, I’ve seen no change. We need smaller government,” one Palin supporter commented to a WBZ news reporter the day of her party. That’s the news bite the majority of New Englanders heard, followed by Palin, herself: “I want to tell you – [nah] – we’ll keep clinging to our constitution and our guns and religion, and you can keep the change,” as if this mission statement hasn’t been forcibly undertaken by every administration since Reagan’s. “Smaller government” isn’t our issue, clearly, and it hasn’t been their issue, either, for the last 30 years, as we can see from the Pentagon’s budget, the proceeds of which have been distributed to ‘free’ market privateers who have completely undermined our constitutional republic by replacing public government that represents us all with the permanent police state they control. Less corrupt, more effective government – without the propaganda shrink wrapped around the agenda of items permissible to discuss in the public discourse – is the issue. Palin’s tea ‘parody’ represents far more closely the fête the Mad Hatter threw for Alice than the 1773 demonstration in Boston Harbor for that reason. So one must ask – is it really ‘tea,’ or something else, at the heart of Palin’s ‘protest?’

“Well, that’s why I get to live in the bubble I live in – thanks to people like you,” the clerk said to me that day, without even a hint of shame, when I told her about my blog. She’s about the age of the initial group of youth who cast their first votes when Viacom’s MTV inaugurated its Rock the Vote campaign in 1990, becoming the first global corporation to sponsor mass, direct American civics education – bad mass, direct American civics education, at that. For her, as for most Americans, self-governance begins and ends at the polling booth every four years, when she and her cohorts organize themselves into that type of “mob” which Founding Father James Madison decried as the enemy of the American Constitutional Republic in Federalist Paper No. 10 – that democratic mob made up of the most powerful factions of people in our country (such as the broadcasting industry), whose interests are the only ones our elected officials represent. Madison, like all the other Federalists, despised democracy and preferred to it instead a constitutional republic in which the people elected “virtuous” men to represent everyone, not merely the most powerful of the body politic.

But here’s the catch: to whom can a concerned Patriot turn for help in fighting fascist hypocrites such as Palin now that we’re down this rabbit hole – where up is down, down is up, and nothing our politicians say or do makes patent sense? Ron Paul supporter Michael Edward has made good use of the disaffection of those of us who understand these things about our politicians and our lost form of government, but when we scratch the surface of his “Restore the Republic” movement, we find the same type of hypocrisy that calls for less, not more effective, civil government. It’s easy to see that what they want is actually vigilante-style “independence,” the freedom to live as lawless frontiersmen in the mistaken belief that that is what our Founding Fathers wished for us.

I admit it – much of Edward’s research is spot on, and he demonstrates a thorough understanding of the singularly most distressing aspect of our emerging socialist state: the totalitarianism that a group of privileged (less and less honorably elected) people increasingly exert over the majority of us. But that the one, effective antidote to this situation is a government-less, “free market” exploitation of the issues at the heart of our attempts to promote the commonwealth our Founding Fathers intended us to create is a fallacy, one they are prepared to cling to, if necessary, with guns in hand. They couldn’t be more closely aligned with the neocons they claim to abhor.

There is an unmistakable pattern of propaganda at work here: embedded into a manufactured issue that takes a perspective beneficial only to those who created the issue is a grain of truth to which we are drawn, but then the subsequent dialogue is inevitably channeled in a way that benefits only those people who created the ‘issue.’ With its ‘answer’ of no government to its specious ‘problem’ of big government, it’s easy to see that Restore the Republic is clearly a “false flag” organization created to ensnare unsuspecting disaffected Americans by pretending to be something that it is not – representative of the interests of the average American.  I can only deduce his organization is a false flag, one of the many propaganda tools of "historic" importance George W. Bush ordered the quislings of his Global Communications Office to create in 2003 for his never-ending covert war.

Then there’s the hatred of the other that is so assiduously promoted by American culture that's also used to undermine belief in a public government that has given us everything from the interstate highway system to the enforcement of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of anyone who doesn’t ascribe to the anti-humanistic notion we are all nothing more than animals in a jungle, of anyone who remembers a time when the American government wasn’t directly involved in creating debased culture that encourages us to fight amongst ourselves.  Probably the most detrimental war being waged against the American citizen is in the area of quality public education.

Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd president and the author of the Declaration of Independence, was a firm believer in universal, government-supported education for all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay for it. He and a group of his colleagues put together what can only be called the first charter school in Washington, D.C., by pledging the sum of $200 in ten installments in 1805 for its creation, when he was barely solvent. Together, they raised more than $35,000 to start this, the forerunner to the public school, just to prove to lawmakers that publicly-supported education was worth financing with public funds – and they succeeded. Less than a decade-and-a-half later, the Commonwealth of Virginia created the first public institution of higher learning, the University of Virginia, and Jefferson became its first head. Jefferson envisioned what recent educators would call constructivist principles as the basis of good, universal education, but since the 1970s, education has been turned into an enterprise where only performance matters, an enterprise in which even basic science and history facts have been relegated to the rubbish heap. In the last 20 years especially, the charter school movement has done everything it can to create an elite class of citizens culled for advancement from those students that demonstrate susceptibility to indoctrination, not the ability to think critically. Charter schools still get public funding, but it’s the private funding mechanism that has ultimate decision-making power in our classrooms, given that it is they, through their access to local political representatives vis-à-vis their respective tax bases, who now dictate whatever government requirements the schools must meet for accreditation. This isn’t the type of influence Jefferson and his colleagues believed was the right of citizens in a constitutional republic. Though they could have predicted it, they would never have tolerated the undue influence of the corporation in American society. In an age when accurate science and history information is under siege, the proliferation of this system of education is troubling indeed.

Jefferson also had such disdain for the power exerted by religious leaders, and such a mistrust of institutionalized religion, that he wrote his own version of the gospels in which he redacted all the supernaturalism that he felt obscured the collective wisdom of the ancient texts. And he made certain that anyone who so chose could follow his example and freely worship G_d as he or she pleased. That’s why the first organizing principle of our nation’s founding documents, the first amendment to our federal constitution, established a clear-cut separation between church and state. He would be appalled if he were alive today that American church leaders now have the power to perform the duties of civil law enforcement and arrest people, thanks to George W. Bush’s administration.  Perhaps Sarah Palin’s former party leader didn’t expressly call our Constitution “just a piece of paper,” but he certainly acts as though he believes that is all it is.

By all accounts, we can see that the "smaller" government of the former neocons and the even smaller -- or non-existent -- government of the Tea Party -- actually exists, particularly where it concerns services such as quality education, so what the heck is Palin and the crazies that follow her around talking about?  And where did Christine O'Donnell come from?  Here, we can benefit from some more history to help answer our mounting questions.

In 1953, the CIA engineered the coup against Iran's reformist leader, Moussadgh, by paying poor Iranians to pretend, by conducting mass protests, that Moussadgh was unpopular and that there was a legitimate counter party to him.  They did this to install the pro-west business (Great Britain, especially), oil cartel-friendly Shah.  Then the CIA did the same thing 20 years later in Chile, ushering in the brutal, pro-fascist Pinochet dictatorship.  In 1981, Ronald Reagan made it legal for the CIA to do the same type of theatre here, in America, and, as we've already seen, to infiltrate "for the purposes of influencing the activities of" all political action groups in order to polarize factions against each other.  He did so because he realized - as every great dictator does - that conquering a people is easier when they are fighting each other, instead of you.  Probably the most ludicrous thing Tea Party candidates such as newly "elected" Christine O'Donnell tell people about the surge in popularity of Tea Party candidates is that the American people want them, the true conservatives, because neocons such as Rush Limbaugh aren't right-wing enough.   All those Tea Party "protestors" at their rallies?  Government-paid, militants-for-hire.  Remember -- the Joint Forces have been working in America since 1996 with all the CIA's and FBI's tools and technologies, and the ability to hire from your neighborhood minions to do their street theater.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't some seriously stupid, deluded people in the Tea Party "movement," but the Tea Party is clearly another type of propaganda tool the CIA uses -- misdirection. While you sit here deriding them, or laughing at their staged stupidity on The Colbert Report, or The Jon Stewart Show, your civil society is being transformed exactly the way Nazi Germany was in the First and Second Solutions (and you know what that led to; that's right - the Final Solution, which is well under way), and every legitimate activist working to change this already patently fascist government is derided as crazy -- just like Tea Party candidates.  Propaganda tools such as these are the reason why the American public has been deluded into believing it is still a government of, by and for the people, and that it isn't already every horrible thing the Tea Party candidates say they want for America's future government, which is no government at all, according to them.  That's exactly what you have -- no public, shared government, just a police state.  So we've come to the point where we can now answer the question, "Who is Sarah Palin, and is she a member of our military, and if so, what type?"  She's clearly not a mere politician, and if she's not, neither are any other Tea Party "candidates," including Christine O'Donnell.  Since they're using CIA-developed tools, we can justifiably deduce they are members of the CIA and, that being the case, that they are not legitimate political figures, or true freedom-loving American patriots, or any type of entity that can benefit you, the American people.  They're puppets on a string, and the people pulling those strings are the fascists in control of our government.

We could all use a bubble tea break from the sophistry of Palin and the neocons, I understand, but buckling under the pressure to rid the public discourse of pernicious voices such theirs, as our Founding Fathers instructed us to do, would ensure our enslavement to this fascist status quo, and slavery is not what this country was created to perpetuate. This is the issue facing all Americans today:  American fascism, and it is the responsibility of us all to fight and defeat it. So I turn to you today with my plea – save yourselves. The Sarah Palins of the world aren’t interested in doing that. They’re off somewhere, training in the uses of their favorite T, the next mind-control weapon.

Print Page

No comments: