Bermas did an excellent job with this subject matter. He covered a vast array of topics and seamed everything together in an easy to digest, credible piece of work. I am impressed. This film definitely defines "New World Order". I feel that this film will change society.
A lot of history lessons here, a lot thanks to Carol Quigley’s careful historical notes of how people associated with the Council on Foreign Relations gained such influence over academia and newspapers like The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, and the Washington Post .
Jason Bermas says towards the end of his film: “We are threatened by a superclass that control the flow of information, and hide technology from the public.” We then hear the voice of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s recorded during his 1961 farewell speech:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employement, project allocations – and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
We must be alert to the equal – but opposite danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific – technological elite.”
Jason Bermas comes back on saying:
“It is time to put down the remote control, to turn off your X-Box and start paying attention.
It is time to step away from every-day luxuries, and take action against the monolithic concentrate of evil in order to save what is left of humanity.
We must now trade in our apathy for ACTION, in order to defeat this invisible empire.”
Thank-you Jason Bermas, Alex Jones, Aaron Dykes, Rob Jacobson, Michael Whiteside, Michael McWhirter, Jason Douglass, Rob Deww, Janée Meadows, Peter Dale Scott www.peterdalescott.net , G. Edward Griffin www.freedomforceinternational.org , Mark Dice www.markdice.com , Cindy Sheehan www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com, Justin Martell, Eric Jackmann, Luke Rudkowsky, Matt Ryan, Tim Frudge, Jason Mandresh, Justin Keogh and all you others !
Jason is so right : Taking action WORKS ! Time is short though, since we still have the criminal elite embedded in our own security apparatus: they can get edgy and cause terror and chaos again if we do not make haste to identify the dangerous traitors among us, and take them away from their positions of control.
Alex Jones recently warned again of how we must stop a possible nuclear false flag in this 5 min interview with Max Keiser (on Iranian PRESS-TV!) www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ehxkOOhh-0
Warm greetings to the whole family of activists and awake people out there, the collection of lies broadcast by the "Mighty Wurlitzer" www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.html in scores of media, but most prominently in the New York Times of Sept 12th & 13th 2001 are finally collapsing !
Especially warm greetings to Montreal, who will will be hosting on May 3rd Prof. David Ray Griffin AND Richard Gage at the University in downtown Montreal : a good way to take action right now, is to CHIP-IN at http://world911truth.org/we-need-your-support-now The other good thing to do is of course to purchase "Invisible Empire" and give copies to friends who would benefit from learning a bit of history ! http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html
Pros.
This video is excellent. It will wake up a lot more people to what is really going on. Hopefully it will make Jason Bermas a lot of money so he can keep doing what he is doing and does best.
A few cons...
I wish some of the speeches in the video were dated and some more of the people identified. Also George H.W. Bush was the 41st President. George W. Bush was the 43rd President.
Big Whoop. This film's positives far outweigh any negatives or criticisms. Just good to give a balanced feedback sometimes. Four out of Five stars. Probably Five.
covers alot of ground! Nice shot of Mark Dice's bookshelf! A couple of good things may be coming our way......Goldman Sachs is in trouble and with a little luck it will only get worse........call your congressman and tell him/her you want blood and your 173 billion back....Jesse Ventura and Willie Nelson on King talking some truth in the MSM......Murrah victim families getting some exposure.......the tea parties at the very least have people talking and in the streets .............The elite have just put the old Clinton chestnut out to preach for calm among the peasants.............Iran says 911 is a lie to the UN...........more people than ever don't trust our leaders..........more people don't like the way our economy is going when people who want to work and their children can't find jobs.......the politicians are in rough waters and they know it may get even worse. Right on Power to the People.
Bill Clinton was on Larry King Live recently discussing the Murrah bombing. It may have been my imagination but he didn't seem entirely convincing with his false version of the events (and he's an accomplished liar.) Surely to god these people must be aware that the truth is becoming more widespread daily, and surely it must become difficult to continue to perpetrate an obvious lie. At some point even the slickest liars must find it painful to keep propping up the lie. I imagine it's like a pathological liar suddenly realizing he's the last person in the room who still believes what he's saying.
I feel the foundations crumbling and it probably won't be pretty when the empire of falsehoods collapses.
The film contains a lot of interesting footage and information.
I won't waste time on praise, as others have and will do so in abundance.
I'd like to point out some of the fallacies with the filmmaker's over-arching vision.
"Collectivism" is pitted against "individualism". In fact, individuality and community reinforce one another. This has been affirmed in countless studies and anthropological examples. Real community necessarily includes common ownership of public resources, though the the role of the state remains controversial. In my article Ayn Rand in Uganda, I equated right wing "libertarianism" or "propertyism" with a political expression of psychopathy. I also explored the opinions of the "Founding Fathers" on the relationship between common ownership and individual freedom. The Federalists, who were, in essence, the "neocons" of their day, envisioned a strong central government to protect the interests of the rich. Jefferson and Franklin were different, and were closer to libertarian socialism.
A popular quotation (often attributed to Ben Franklin) amongst libertarians is that “democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”. Viewed through the prism of “representative” democracy under capitalism, this makes a certain amount of sense. Yet Franklin also remarked that:
[In Native American society] all property, indeed, except the savage’s temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.
Thomas Jefferson also noticed the relationship between common ownership and freedom of the individual. Employing the wolf/sheep metaphor in a different sense, he contrasted Native American society to that of Europe:
“Under presence of governing, [Europeans] have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep”. Whereas, amongst Native Americans:
Every man, with them, is perfectly free to follow his own inclinations. But if, in doing this, he violates the rights of another, if the case be slight, he is punished by the disesteem of society…Whenever there is, in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so extended as to violate natural right.
The reference to property and “natural rights” is especially interesting in this respect, since libertarianism equates inviolable property “rights” to “natural rights”. Jefferson turns the equation upside down. When the “laws of property” have been “so extended”, the “natural rights” of man become non-existent.
In "The Art of Walking the Razor's Edge - Reconciling Autonomy and Community", by Andrew Dinkelaker, the author debunks black and white conceptions of "individualism" and "community":
Traditionally, community and autonomy are viewed as opposite poles on a linear spectrum. The amount of individual 'autonomy' that can be permitted in any given society is conceived as inversely proportional to the extent that that society is considered a socially cohesive 'community'. The two principles resemble the the rise and fall of two people on opposite ends of a seesaw. As the value of individual autonomy is elevated, the capacity for community sinks - and vice versa.
These two principles are not mutually exclusive. And so we must constantly be on the lookout for theorists/activists who would focus on one while neglecting the other. People can operate in ways that are autonomous and interdependent at the same time. In fact, genuinely democratic forms of socio-political organization, which operate according to consensus-oriented processes, are forms that specialize in maintaining our focus simultaneously on both.
The distinction is not between individualism and community but authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. The either/or of black/white dichotomy is fallacious.
I'm in the process of writing an article on misconceptions about "world government". Here is an excerpt relevant to Bermas' film:
In any discussion of “world government”, the first thing we need to recognize is that we already have a de facto world government. William I Robinson describes the emerging transnational ruling class as a natural product of capital expansion – certainly not a conspiracy to destroy the golden goose:
There is a new transnational configuration of power. In part, this is where a transnational state comes into play, which is another novel aspect of the new epoch. The question is how can the transnational capitalist class exercise its political authority? Well, one way is through utilizing existing state apparatus in each country, and we have seen plenty of that. Another is through the transformation of existing international institutions, such as the old Bretton Woods institutions or the agencies of the United Nations system, and the creation of entirely new ones, such as the World Trade Organization. Transnational capital attempts to convert the structural power of the global economy over individual countries and over working classes in each nation-state into direct political authority or influence through this transnational state apparatus.
Transnational institutions attempt to coordinate global capitalism and imposing capitalist domination beyond national borders. The IMF, for instance, by imposing a structural adjustment program that opens up a given country to the penetration of transnational capital, the subordination of local labor, and the extraction of wealth by transnational capitalists, is operating as a transnational state institution to facilitate the exploitation of local labor by global capital. Although it is true that nation-state power and autonomy has declined in relation to transnational power structures, this image is somewhat misleading since these transnational power structures are localized within each nation by concrete social forces that are materially and politically part of the emergent transnational power bloc.
Take IBM (please). "According to Business Week, by the end of 2008, more than 70 percent of IBM's work force of 400,000 was abroad. In 2009 IBM reduced its U.S. employment by another 8 percent." The activities of IBM and other corporations are not designed to “destroy the American republic”; they are designed to maximize profit as per the mandate of capitalism. It just so happens that maximizing profit entails finding the cheapest labor force with the weakest governmental regulations. In business-speak, the decimation of the American work force is an “externality.
Imperialists long ago realized that allowing conquered nations to maintain their own flags and (puppet) leaders was more effective than attempting to erase tribal identities. The current de facto world government operates according to similar principles. It transcends the nation state while maintaining the myth of national sovereignty. It allows the free flow of capital while restricting the movements and rights of human beings according to borders drawn up by rich old warlords hundreds of years ago.
States allow for primitive nationalism – divide and conquer on a global scale. Creating a super-exploited class of Mexican laborers, for example, is an excellent way of channeling American aggression towards Mexicans rather than corporations. It is precisely the migrant’s “illegal” status which makes him or her a desirable employee. Ironically, the “minute men” of the world, in seeking to deny rights to migrant workers, actually exacerbate illegal immigration. Were they to join forces with the marginalized group, the utility of exploiting “illegals” would disappear.
It is likely that supranational institutions such as the EU and WTO will increase in number and power, with a more concrete “world government” coming into existence (before, in my opinion, dissolving, but that’s for another essay); yet this not likely to resemble either the utopian vision of an Einstein or HG Wells – both of whom advocated world government – nor the borderless bugaboo of the “illuminati” theorists. On the contrary, increasingly centralized and supranational power is likely to result in increasingly militarized borders.
As anthropologist David Graeber slyly notes:
It has become popular, of course, to talk as if the growth of trade and migration are making national borders increasingly irrelevant. Look at the same situation in terms of the last five hundred years. It’s easy to see that, while world trade has increased somewhat, overall migration rates are nothing like what they were one (let alone two or three) hundred years ago, and the only element that’s entirely new here is the presence of the borders themselves. The modern “interstate system,” which carves up the earth through thousands of highly patrolled and regulated borders, was only fully completed quite recently; and far from being eaten away by globalization, institutions like the IMF or WTO are entirely premised on it. The number of armed men patrolling the US border with Mexico has tripled or even quadrupled since the signing of NAFTA; before it, no one was even considering the idea of reinforcing the border with a giant wall.”
Intriguingly, the Pentagon’s report on global warming envisions the public positively clamoring for militaristic border patrols. Western nations will become "virtual fortresses…armed against an angry tide of people displaced by rising sea levels or unable to grow food, and running for their lives.”<
The process is already well underway in the United States, though Americans would do well to remember that walls keep people in as well as out.
Not a bad film, but plagued by the myriad fallacies of right-wing "libertarianism", a contradictory philosophy that pits everyone against each other, Hobbes' "war against all".
plain and simple it can't last another 50 years at current population levels under the same rules of the cheapest labor force with fewest regulations etc.
What if the Chinese grow their work force to 200 million.. a fraction of their population......who will compete with that? The economic model exists to support an oligarchy.........workers around the world are becomming obsolete.........just the leaps of technology and machine labor alone continue to diminish demand for workers much less the growing population of India. What if "secret and suppressed technology" was expanded? The new world order is designed with a world of diminished population levels.........useless eaters ............are future targets for a "break away civilization" with medical life extentions for the elite. The inherent conflicts of interest along with excessive greed are currently inflicting mortal wounds to the economic model even faster with transfers "theft" of wealth that are beyond the limits of any historical basis or projections for that matter. There used to be a saying about Life being a Banquet with most poor bastards starving to death etc. Well at the new feast too many bastards are gorging themselves... Is there an alternative ............can we all evolve together........yes there are some good ideas out there....radical change is unlikely but perhaps a shift over the next 50 years to the Human model via a social credit system which supports basic life requirements and allows for personal potential development for the betterment of Man and Earth could do the job. However, getting the cooperation of the oligarchy before they get us will be the key.
Yeah, that's mine. Thread has set a record for comments on Dissident Voice, but I'd love to hear from more people who classify themselves as "libertarians". The fact that I agree with "libertarians" on so many issues, ditto Marxists, liberals and conservatives, goes to show that perhaps we're not so far apart as we often think. In the end, we all want the same thing -- freedom -- we just have different opinions on how to get there. Debate is a good thing.
Thanks, Danse. This movement badly needs more competent theoreticians to give guidance in projects like this one that aim to give a broad overview of the current situation. It always intrigues and unnerves me that many of the people who are most visible in the dissemination of alternative hypotheses about 911 have what can only be described as a facile political outlook. All the raw enthusiasm and righteousness in the world can't substitute for the long, hard work of patiently and methodically strengthening the theoretical framework in terms of which one comprehends the current possibilities for real change. I don't wanna sound too cynical, but you get the feeling that if Avery, Bermas, et al. hadn't happened to stumble across 911 research, they might instead have started some over-earnestly political hip-hop outfit, rapping cringingly obvious lyrics over lame-ass beats, and trying really, really hard to break into the mainstream. Well, that might be a bit mean, I admit. But you know what I'm getting at.
For the first time ever, the secret agenda of the planet's ruthless Super-class is exposed in stark detail. This documentary film chronicles how men of power and influence have worked in stealth for centuries to establish an oppressive world government. Learn how this global oligarchy controls the populace through drug trafficking, money laundering, staged terror attacks, media propaganda and debt. The criminal controllers have successfully dominated the globe and are now in the final phase of consolidating power. Invisible Empire is a damning indictment of the globalists through their own words and documents. Worldwide tyranny isn't coming, it's here. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact. The New World Order is out in the open, all documented in stunning living color. Unelected bureaucrats are establishing regional unions under one superstate. Witness their plan for a global tax and a cashless surveillance society in which every man, woman and child is micro-chipped at birth. Invisible Empire will be more than just a film-- it is the culmination of years of research by Jason Bermas into the inner-workings and most revealing public statements by the New World Order and the most trusted stewards of their dark vision. 'Invisible Empire' promises to unveil the long-term agenda for world control, just as Fabled Enemies and Loose Change Final Cut forever stripped away the facade of the official story of 9/11 and exposed the dark truth that lies behind. Jason Bermas joins with Alex Jones, producer of The Obama Deception, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, TerrorStorm and more than 20 other key titles for your understanding of the real world, all available on DVD at Infowars.com or for download in High-Quality at PrisonPlanet.tv
in general, it seems like jason (and alex?) tried to cram way too much info into one film and then rushed to deadline. there is an ongoing failure to connect the dots factually, and heavy reliance on accusation and speculation.
in particular, the "hi i'm jason" intro is awful, and the inordinate amount of time spent focusing on the many people who used the term "new world order" doesn't help. meanwhile, there is not enough analysis of how the drug trade plays into things. ironically, during the iran/contra segment, jason makes extended use of the pervasive mainstream media coverage of iran/contra, which begs the question: "why did these supposed NWO activities get so much mainstream media attention, if the mainstream media is as totally controlled by NWO architects as the film alleges?" most distressing of all was jason's parting line that all caring viewers "trade in your apathy for action" without even a suggestion of a hint as to WHAT can be done once we put down our remotes. this hollow "call to action" unwittingly plays into the hands of the alleged NWO architects by reinforcing our feelings of disempowerment.
in short, i found this film to be a terribly disappointing presentation of issues that really do matter. there's a wealth of information here, but it needs to be presented more professionally. inclusion of some opposing viewpoints would help.
maybe the second cut will be better. i hope so. but it would have to be worlds better before i'd consider recommending or circulating the film to anyone, as alex obtrusively suggests about a third of the way in.
I personally like the intro "Hi, I'm Jason". It is real. Everyday people can identify with Jason. If you have ever talked with Jason, he is a "regular guy", friendly and easy to converse with. (Bermas was an ordinary guy who happened to see some graffiti over the urinal ...and this message prompted him to start investigating what was going on.)
Prior to this film's release, I was trying to think how a film presentation could be designed which tied the many facets together into something entertaining and easy-to-digest, but also maintain credibility. This would be a tough project. Jason hit the perfect design in my view. He utilized mainstream clips to keep credibility, and sequenced topics into something which an ordinary person could understand.
A film covering this subject matter could easily be 10 hours long, but also become extremely dull for an average viewer. Jason did an excellent job of blending the right mix. He has been working on this project a long time.
dennis55, Maybe I will change my mind when your "New World Order" film comes out.
of information in this film about issues that really do matter.
I strongly disagree however, when you say that Jason gives a "hollow "call to action" " which would "unwittingly play into the hands of the alleged NWO architects by reinforcing our feelings of disempowerment". Not at all! Jason is already succeeding at giving a better idea and definition of the concept of NWO to the man in the street, and Alex Jones is encouraging us to spread its history educating message far and wide. It is a good thing to hear that you would prefer more, and a more professional academic presentation: there it is: Your empowered call to action!
Of-course, different people would need different strokes.
Academic people can be given Richard Gage’s DVD “The Architecture of Destruction”, or the six academic articles of American Behavioral Scientist of February 2010 : http://www.911blogger.com/node/22774#comment-228155 .
Jason Bermas’ film has the high merit of giving more historic texture to this “New Century’s Buzzword” New World Order. The concept of “New World Order” differs, depending on who is uttering it. But it is important to distill where the pattern is coming from, and the philosophy of Cecil Rhodes, the Chatam house and the Council of Foreign Nations. The clip where Hillary Clinton expresses her gratitude to the setting up of a Washington DC antenna of the CFR “so that we will know what to think and what to do here in Washington” (loose translation from memory) is absolutely memorable. It is quite amazing, how much influence these often well meaning and intelligent people have had on academia and the press: here is a small excerpt from “Tragedy and Hope” by Prof. Carol Quigley,(1966) http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/tragedyandhope.htm
More than getting over the “collectivism” / “individualism” dichotomy that Danse talked about, I think the big question is how we will deal with the “good / evil” dichotomy.
In order to shake off the horrendous filth and slime that the United States has gotten itself into by killing 3000 of its own Citizens in cold blood in order to blame it on “Al Qaeda” and “Islamic Extremists”, followed by charging into two illegal wars, killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people, it will need a very serious and lengthy truth and reconciliation commission.
There, we must drop the “good” / “evil” dichotomy, and only criminally prosecute those who are responsible for crimes against humanity. The others will need to be confronted with the nefarious consequences that the neo-con elite, banksters and complicit media have brought on to the people, and of-course fraudulently obtained resources must be returned to the collectivity, which needs to be controlled by the people through an accountable democratic voting system, and not be funneled off to Halliburton & military industrial complex friends via the Bank of England.
The United States will pull through this whole ordeal hopefully as wiser World Citizens who gain their wealth on good education and morals, and not on exploiting other more impoverished regions in the World. The people who wrote “The Project of the New American Century” were not all evil, but they were clearly wrong, and the mixture of philosophy and criminality that led to such miscreants as those who engineered the mass murders of 9/11 and the ridiculous crime against humanity idea to go off and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq that followed, must be confronted and analyzed quickly, before the expensive imperialistic adventures completely bankrupts what is left of the American economy and its moral standing in the world.
I am confident we will be able to pull through IF WE MAKE HASTE of Jason Bermas’ call to action!
For example, the premise of a one world government being evil is wildly speculative. Let's say a single government is put in place the right way ie, end of wars, single currency, freedom for all, etc. This could potentially be great. Our constitution is an example of that and has formed the core principal in the way this country has been run. This film fails to establish a connection to why a one world government would be bad.
The film also states that people will be slaves under a one world gov (OWG). This is not necessarily true. This would arise more from an economic system than any government policy...although, gov policy could potentially limit this. You see, businesses are in business to make money. They see an opportunity to make more money and increase their bottom line and take it. Comcast for example, has increased their prices steadily over the years. They are now in a monopolistic position. Success breeds success. We will become slaves to corporations who ream us...not from a gov. Perhaps Karl Marx is ultimately right, that socialism (an economic system) is the next phase of capitalism. The Russians perhaps needed to be capitalist first...and that is why they failed.
I like having control over my life. The closer or more localized my sphere of influence, the better. I can control my body and health better than the government or a corporation or a distant group. I can control my family better than a far off entity. I can handle my neighborhood better than a Federal agency. I prefer that controlling influences to be localized and volitional.
Go ahead...subscribe to the decrees of a far off entity if that is what you want. You have that choice. But don't have it mandated for me.
I was critiquing the film in regards to the lack of connection between OWG and evil. There is the potential that a OWG could be great. Imagine taking the 60 - 65% of the National Budget and spend it on something different than arms/defense...because war will be obsolete.
I understand your concerns about localism, and the examples you give are great and valid. There is still however a need for a larger sphere of influence and regulation. What happens upstream can effect you. Resources need to be managed accordingly. I'm guessing you don't have an oil well in your locality (you might, most don't)...you get the point.
Volume Three of Das Kapital presents Marx's grand analysis of how the Labor Theory of Value is not contradicted in the Capitalist society; before Volume Three came out many wondered if the Labor Theory of Value was correct because if it was then that would mean that companies that introduced labor saving machinery should make less profit, while complimentary companies in the same industry that were labor intensive would make more profits. Critics said the aforementioned disparities of Profits should be seen if Marx was right, but no such described disparities were seen.
Marx explained this seeming contradiction in Volume Three of Das Kapital (which the Austrian School economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk predicted Marx would say!) that the value created by labor (the total of which is Profit) is equalized by the competitive nature of Capitalism (profits are equalized by competition for capital), which is why one doesn't see the labor intensive companies doing better than the less labor intensive companies in the same industry.
Now Böhm-Bawerk didn't only predict how Marx would square his Labor Theory of Value with the observable world, he also had a critique waiting for Marx's explanation! Böhm-Bawerk said that before profits have a chance to equalize in any particular industry where labor saving devices are introduced, that it is always the case that those companies in the industry that introduced the labor saving devices are the ones that have the greatest profits. Always!
Lenin knew what he was doing regarding the economy of the USSR, as did all those who came after Lenin. Before the USSR could be allowed to become Capitalist however, it first had to defeat its political enemies abroad: Us! The USSR couldn't defeat us by allowing free markets. Free markets would have quickly led to the people of the USSR demanding political freedom and throwing the Communists out of power. So the Communists instituted not a Socialist system (that can only come from advanced Capitalism according to Marx, and Lenin knew Marx was right), but a temporary government-run command economy. Temporary meaning until the enemies of Bolshevism were defeated.
The USSR still doesn't have a Capitalist economy. There is no freedom of trade in the USSR. The USSR's major source of income is its earth-based resources. I say the USSR because it STILL exists. The so-called collapse of the USSR in 1991 was a ruse. Read KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn's book 'New Lies For Old' for more on what has been going on in the USSR since the death of Stalin:
As far as a OWG with American participation, that is bull. The USSR/China have a OWG in mind, not America. Sometimes Alex jumps the gun in his analysis of American intentions.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
The "most immediate effects of machinery on the worker" which Marx describes are all negative: the introduction of machinery is used by capital to impose work on women and children, to prolong the working day and to intensify labor. The great paradox which Marx sees in the capitalist use of machinery appears fully elaborated here: the machine reduces the need for muscle power "”which should lighten labor"” but draws in and exhausts women and children; the machine makes it possible to produce more in a shorter period "”which should lighten labor"” but it is used instead to prolong it; the machine which allows one to accomplish the work of many faster than ever "”which should lighten labor"” is used to make the one work at an exhaustingly rapid pace.
"Hence too the economic paradox that the most powerful instrument for reducing labor-time suffers a dialectical inversion and becomes the most unfailing means for turning the whole lifetime of the worker and his family into labor-time at capital's disposal for its own valorization."
--
This is essentially correct. As David Noble points out:
During the Industrial Revolution "Capital invested in machines that would reinforce the system of domination [in the workplace], and this decision to invest, which might in the long run render the chosen technique economical, was not itself an economical decision but a political one, with cultural sanction." [Op. Cit., p. 6]
"U.S. Manufacturing industry over the last thirty years . . . [has seen] the value of capital stock (machinery) relative to labour double, reflecting the trend towards mechanisation and automation. As a consequence . . . the absolute output person hour increased 115%, more than double. But during this same period, real earnings for hourly workers . . . rose only 84%, less than double. Thus, after three decades of automation-based progress, workers are now earning less relative to their output than before. That is, they are producing more for less; working more for their boss and less for themselves." [Op. Cit., pp. 92-3]
Noble continues:
"For if the impact of automation on workers has not been ambiguous, neither has the impact on management and those it serves -- labour's loss has been their gain. During the same first thirty years of our age of automation, corporate after tax profits have increased 450%, more than five times the increase in real earnings for workers." [Op. Cit., p. 95]
In recent years this trend has continued. In the United States, for example, between the 1955 and the 1995 the output per capita doubled, yet working hours did not decrease but increased.
--
Your claim that "socialism can only come from advanced capitalism" is patently absurd. 99% of our history on planet was defined by socialist communities (anarcho-socialist, properly defined). However, the idea that socialism and industrialism are intertwined was indeed promoted by both Marx and Lenin, who believed that socialism could not become from a "backwards peasant society" such as Russia. Thus, Lenin himself referred to the Bolshevik system as “state capitalism”. His idea was to appropriate the means of production developed by capitalism in its “military imperialist stage” (his words), including “Taylorist techniques” of “scientific management”, and transform the “backward peasant society” of Russia into an industrial powerhouse.
You wrote:
"Free markets would have quickly led to the people of the USSR demanding political freedom and throwing the Communists out of power."
The first thing the Bolsheviks did was to destroy the nascent socialist institutions that developed prior to and during the revolution -- Soviets, factory councils etc. They also went to war against the anarchists.
Your contention that "free markets" are correlated with "political freedom" is absurd, and runs contrary to the entire history of capitalist development. The Bill of Rights was "shoved down the throats" of the federalists by the more democratic elements of the society, notably the anti-Federalists, who envisioned a more decentralized, democratic and socialistic society.
The history of capitalist development shows an inverse relationship between capitalism and political freedom. Professors Jessica Wilson and Benj Hellie:
“…the emerging class of capitalist landlords and rich farmers launched a battle to dispossess peasants of their lands. By driving up rents, disputing peasant ownership in the courts, and foreclosing on debts, English landlords forced hundreds of thousands of peasants to give up their lands. As rich farmers took over these plots, constructed large farms, and paid increased rents to landlords, they also hired landless peasants as wage workers. Still, large numbers of dispossessed peasants resisted entering the labour market. Many erected small cottages on the common lands, hoping to survive there than sell their labour to an employer. As a result, the emerging capitalist class launched a war against the common lands, turning them wherever possible into their own private property”
“Once the rich and powerful had set in motion the destruction of the common land system (and the common rights that accompanied it), they sealed the process by turning to Parliament. There, in the midst of other rich landowners, they introduced private Enclosure Acts which enclosed the commons, gave legal title to it to rich landlords, and deprived the poor of vital sources of livelihood. Between 1760 and 1830, at least six million acres of common lands were enclosed by parliamentary decree (see McNally, Against the Market, pp. 7-14). These Acts often ignited a class war on the land as the rural poor fought desperately to preserve their livelihoods. But with the backing of Parliament, the courts, troops and superior weapons, the authorities crushed peasant resistance. The new capitalist order emerged, as Marx put it, “dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt”.
“Only when they were thoroughly dispossessed of both land held as personal possessions (often on some kind of lease basis) and of access to what were known as common lands did large numbers of the English poor turn to waged work and submit to the disciplines of the labour market.
“The creation of a landless class of wage workers—people who had no means of survival other than the sale of their labour—was at the very heart of capitalist development.”
There was, however, one alternative to wage labor, and many peasants preferred it over surrendering their autonomy to capitalists and becoming slaves: begging. It became very popular. Thus:
“In 1530, legislation decreed that sturdy vagabonds were to be whipped until blood streamed from their bodies, after which they could be imprisoned. A 1547 Act allowed a complainant to take anyone who refused work as a slave and to keep them in chains and whip them. According to a law of 1572, unlicensed beggars were to be brutally flogged and branded on the left ear (Marx, Capital, p. 896-7).
“Capitalism emerged, then, through violent and bloody struggles against pre-capitalist forms of life. Only by driving peasants off their land, enclosing the commons, tearing down the cottages of the poor, criminalizing “vagrancy”, and erecting a new system of punishment was a capitalist labour market created. Rather than a natural form of life that evolved spontaneously, “free market capitalism” was built by destroying previous arrangements.”
--
Your apparent obsession with America vs. Soviet Union is misplaced, imo. Neither nations are good models for the development of freedom. Indeed, if there's one thing modern history teaches us it's that both "free market capitalism" and "authoritarian communism" are dismal failures. There are plenty of alternatives, notably libertarian socialism, which the authoritarian Marx dismissed as "utopian". The same applies to "world government" vs. modern states. Neither are desirable because they centralize power and leave the decision making capacity in the hands of wealthy elites.
Both right wing "libertarians" and authoritarian Marxists reject the best possible solution, namely decentralized, participatory democracy. It's how we've lived for 99% of our history, and there's no reason we can't replicate it in the here and now, on a much larger scale by federating horizontally.
I didn't say "socialism can only come from advanced capitalism." Marx said it!
As far as "free markets" are correlated with "political freedom", the Soviets could not allow the free association to buy and sell with whomever one feels like due to the threat that might cause to the USSR's professed historical mission.
America's reaction to the Communist threat as it exists today is THE reason we here in America are losing our freedoms. As you know, the Al-Qaeda threat was made up to continue the war that is still going on between the West and the USSR/China. That is the real reason why America is still trying to place a missile shield in Eastern Europe.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron! Since socialism has no basis to perform economic calculation (which Marx recognized, and why he would use the most vitriolic language against socialists and their half-baked socialist schemes), it can't be reconciled with Libertarianism.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
I didn't say "socialism can only come from advanced capitalism." Marx said it!
In that case we're in agreement, though both Marx and Engels studied so-called "primitive" communism or anarchism, and recognized points of contact between their theories of "socialism" and "primitive" society. Lest there is any confusion, I am not a "Marxist", though I agree with many of his critiques of capitalism (just as I agree with many 'libertarian' critiques of communism). Marx simply ripped off thousands of "socialist" thinkers before him and gave it a pseudo-scientific, authoritarian bent.
"Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron!"
You state this as a fact, but offer no proof. In fact:
Murray Bookchin points out that "respect for the individual, which Radin lists first as the first aboriginal attribute, deserves to be emphasized, today, in an era that rejects the collective as destructive of individuality on the one hand, and yet, in an orgy of pure egotism, has actually destroyed all the ego boundaries of free-floating, isolated, and atomised individuals on the other. A strong collectivity may be even more supportive of the individual as close studies of certain aboriginal societies reveal, than a 'free market' society with its emphasis on an egoistic, but impoverished, self" [Remaking Society, p. 48]
This individualization associated with "primitive" cultures was also noted by Howard Zinn when he wrote that "Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture. No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails - the apparatus of authority in European societies - were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong..." [Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress, 1492-1992]
As Max Horkheimer once observed, "individuality is impaired when each man decides to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society." [The Eclipse of Reason, p. 135]
See also my previous post regarding Jefferson and Franklin.
Notice that "primitive" societies were indeed libertarian socialist -- which is the way we have lived on planet earth for 99% of our time here. The allegation that our ancestors were living in an oxymoron might have come as a surprise. They held most land in common, while allowing for individual possessions and the retention of the entire fruits of one's labor. Pooling of resources occurred on a voluntary basis. We realized a long, long time ago, that common ownership of public resources maximized freedom because the diffusion of ownership and the power this entails allowed direct democracy and equal rights rather than autocratic decision making by a wealthy minority.
My essay "Ayn Rand in Uganda" explores these issues further:
I am not a Marxist or authoritarian socialist or world government advocate, nor do I believe in the mythical "free market" by which individuals are forced to rent themselves to capitalists; there is another way by which autonomy and community can be reconciled, and by which freedom can become tangible. Alfie Kohn wrote that "our miserable individuality is screwed to the back of our cars in the form of personalized license plates." That's not freedom in my estimation, nor is wage slavery, which forces people to live as prostitutes and pimps.
you paint an overly romanticized account of what the Romans would call the Barbarians. One of the attributes of Roman society was the rule of law. Until the Romans came along a tribal chief could take anyone's property. Those not within the ruling elite of the Barbarian tribes were quite surprised to learn that property would now be recorded in the Civil Building, and that such property was not for the taking of covetous chieftains.
Indian tribes here in America were in constant war with each other before the Europeans arrived. Well, those wars are over now!
In primitive society socialist behavior is the norm because such societies are simple and composed of relatively small numbers of people. In today’s complex world, a socialist economy would be suicidal. As Friedrich Hayek said, "Price signals are the only means of enabling each economic decision maker to communicate tacit knowledge or dispersed knowledge to each other, in order to solve the economic calculation problem." In the good ole primitive days no such price signals were necessary. Today free market price signals are necessary for our survival.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
...Indian tribes. I only say that by and large, they had a more sensible take on individual rights and "democracy".
Your other comments re: "socialism" make no sense. For other readers, here's what Orwell had to say about Hayek:
[What Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to “free” competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them."
Quite obviously, "competition" produces winners, who than CAPITALIZE on their good fortune. Which creates monopoly. That's why "free market capitalism" is a pipe dream and nothing but.
I like Orwell. However, I don't confuse so-called Capitalists buying off politicians with pure theory economics. Sure Capitalists are a danger, but so is scrapping the profit/loss function that serves economic calculation. The freer the markets, the better the economy functions.
As Mises and Hayek warned decades ago, Central Banks with their credit manipulation benefit the Capitalists, because they are amongst the first to get the newly created credit before it losses its value. As the new credit makes its way down the economic pipeline to persons like me, then the money has lost value. Later the artificially created credit causes the economic downturn.
I'm open to any suggestions that doesn't interfere with the profit/loss pricing system.
Read Mises' 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth' (see second link below). Published in 1922, it's only 30 pages long, but it sent a major seismic event throughout the Socialist world. Mises work sparked the great Socialist Economic Debate of the 1930s. Socialist economists were forced to come up with solutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) for the problems identified by Mises:
This state of 'constant war' you describe was actually the peacekeeping strategy of the Erratic Retaliator, which is "Give as good as you get, but dont be too predictable."
In practice, this means that if Tribe A is not bothering you, dont bother them. If they do bother you, then by all means return the favor.
"Dont be too predictable" means that even if Tribe A isnt bothering you, it wont be a bad idea to make a hostile move against them, to let them know you're still there and havent gone soft. They will of course, retaliate, and once the score is even everyone can get together for a big reconciliation party and do a little matchmaking, because it's always a good idea to diversify the gene pool of your tribe.
This boils down to tribes staying in a state of perpetual readiness. This is evolutionarily stable, and it worked for 3 million years. To an outsider of our culture, it would seem very much so like a constant, low-level state of war, and in a way it is, but to view this as a defect of tribalism or a disorder to be fixed would be wrong.
Someone of our culture might wonder when Tribe A and Tribe B will put aside their differences and agree to peaceful terms. The answer is that they would do this when mountain sheep put aside their differences and agree to peaceful terms, or when elephant seals put aside their differences and agree to peaceful terms.
So tribal societies played the Erratic Retaliator strategy that worked for them for millions of years. They eventually DID try to put aside their differences when a new tribe appeared and began playing a different game, that of Annihilator. Only it was too late and today our culture (what we view as the One Right Way to Live) has destroyed native peoples and relegated them to reservations out of our way.
The film touches on the Oklahoma City bombing around the 1:21 mark. Newer people to the 9/11 Truth movement might not be familiar with the Oklahoma City bombing.
This is an excellent article which ties 9/11 and Oklahoma City together. http://www.911blogger.com/node/15075
April 19th is the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing.
THURSDAY April 15th - People (many who were affected by this coverup) gathered for a Press Conference. http://www.reddirtreport.com/news.php?id=15062
In my opinion, the coverup of the Oklahoma City bombing is easy for anyone to see.
While the official government report states only a Ryder Truck was used, you can see the news footage from several TV stations which show that multiple bombs were definitely placed inside the secure Federal Building. Listening to the grand jury member (Hoppy Hiedelberg) is also very revealing.
YOUTUBE - If you have never seen some of the Oklahoma City coverage, this Alex Jones clip is pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Sipn9npq4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7YCCduzahw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOBIUGBTB9w
we need a New World Order. One based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all men and women. Not some Orwellian nightmare these maniacs have in mind. What stumps me is how can they live with themselves?
At about 27 minutes into the video it is claimed that people such as Henry Ford, etc., were behind the First World War. It seems to me that someone is playing fast and loose with history here.
While I applaud Bermas' effort to address this critical subject, I too was troubled by his falling into the right-left trap. His statement that many of the ruling elite who conceived and pushed for the New World Order were "collectivists", is erroneous and discredits his treatment of the subject for anyone with a decent background in American history.
Bermas appears to fall for the equating of socialism, communism, and collectivism with totalitarianism and authoritatianism, when in fact, what it seems he should be attacking is the merger of big government with big business, something Mussolini termed "fascism."
This complaint may seem trite and overly concerned with semantics, but as Bermas is attempting to both educate and elevate the discussion of the New World Order, he should not be making such glaring errors. For instance, he names capitalist and robber baron John D. Rockefeller as an early "collectivist," implying that while he created his power through capitalism, what he really wanted for the world was socialism. Try telling that to his workers, to whom he paid starvation wages. He even hired private armies at his plants throughout the country to bust unions and prevent strikes. (See the Ludlow massacre of striking miners, for instance.) The Rockefellers are also notorious for having succeeded in destroying the public transit systems throughout the country in favor of individually-owned automobiles.
The Rockefellers were monopoly capitalists, not socialists, and everything about their behavior and activities suggests this. To have missed this, and indeed to have flipped the conclusion backwards is unforgivable. Instead of using the term "collectivist", Bermas should have substituted the term "corporatist". Does he really believe that the Fortune 500 executives who sit on the CFR are all closet socialists? The only thing that all those involved in ushering in the NWO have in common is that they are all under the influence of massive corporate wealth.
Again, it seems the mistake is in equating any support of big government, and global governance as being indicative of socialism. Anyone familiar with the history of socialist movement would know that socialists saw themselves on the opposite, and opposing side from the capitalists, who were seen as their enemy. Bemas makes the mistake of casting people such as J.D. Rockefeller and David Rockefeller in the mold of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, as if they were not only working toward similar goals, but were part of a singular effort in history.
Bermas essentially places Trilateralists such as Jimmy Carter on the same New World Order team as Dick Cheney simply because they both worked for the same boss. The politics of liberalism, progressivism and neo-conservatism are treated as false divisions intended to mask that all of them are working towards the same New World Order. The differences in these ideologies are supposedly merely intended as a distraction so that we wouldn't realize that regardless of who's in office, it's the same New World Order agenda. While there is certainly some truth to that, I feel that presenting such simplistic explanations way oversimplifies a reality that is likely infinitely more complex.
Bermas seems to believe that the entire Left establishment is on board with a dictatorial New World Order ruled by evil capitalists simply because the Left has been promised "socialism" for the masses. Talk about selling out one's ideals; this scenario simply isn't believable. I truthfully don't know or understand why the Left seems to be onboard with the New World Order, but I suspect it is much, much more complicated.
Furthermore, we are asked to believe that a war criminal the likes of Henry Kissinger is one of the masterminds in helping to bring about this new, global brand of socialism. We should probably recall that Kissinger was behind the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia to supposedly stop the spread of communism from Vietnam and China. And he had the elected socialist president Salvador Allende overthrown by the US-backed Chilean general Agusto Pinochet. So why would well-meaning socialists from around the world be wanting to cooperate on bringing about Kissinger's New World Order? Why would lefty peace activists want to jump on board with the same war profiteers who have bankrolled virtually every major armed conflict since WWI? It makes no sense.
Furthermore, Bermas suggests that by creating a global government, we will only further enable the rule of the world's dictatorships. While making this statement, he flashes pictures of Gaddafi and Hugo Chavez. I find it interesting that to make this point, he used images of two targets of the New World Order. And Chavez, though he may harbor dictatorial aspirations was twice elected by the people of Venezuela despite efforts of the NWO-proxy state, the U.S., to have him permanently removed in a coup.
There is a larger agenda at work here, and Bermas missed it. It would have been better if he had stuck with what he knows, and what is known, and left the conjecture and theorizing for a speculative commentary at the end.
My suspicion is that the New World Order is split into two camps (one neo-con and one socialist), and neither one is in control. Those in control, with the power, are encouraging the two sides to work together because it is their belief that the NWO agenda will fail without the cooperation of BOTH sides. So the two sides grudgingly cooperate, both with the realization that if it pulls out, the other side might take power without them, and both jockeying for influence to implement their respective version of the NWO and to prevent the installation of the others' agenda. All the while fearing that at any time the entire operation could be exposed and forever tarnish their ideology, much as WWII has tarnished the fascist model.
Is anyone planning on distributing this film (and possibly the other new AJ film "police state 4") via cheap dvd duplication on websites such as 911dvdproject.com and onedollardvdproject.com, etc?
This film has already stimulated lots of good comments, and I have just skimmed through them and will read them more thoroughly later. Like some other people, I found a lot to like in the film, as well as in "Fabled Enemies", but think that some of his criticisms of "socialism" and "collectivism" are misdirected. Another area that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is that Bermas says that efforts to slow or stop world population growth and confront global warming are part of the "Globalist's" control plans to kill us off and tax us to death. I'm not going to try to analyze this thinking here, and as I said, there have been some pretty classy analyses in the earlier comments, but I just wanted to add that "ecology" is something else I think Bermas doesn't get right. "Democracy Now" has spent the last week broadcasting from the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia. I cannot conceive of how the people Amy Goodman talked to there could be part of an elitist plot to take away our rights and ruin the world!
I agree Bermas and Alex Jones on a lot of things, and Jones has really gotten out the message about 9/11 and some other hugely important issues, but they seem to have a sort of blind spot about recognizing that big business corporations are what needs to be fought against and exposed. They talk about the CFR and the Bilderburg and "Globalists" as if they were some evil sorcerers in a secret cave rather than the big business capitalists of everyday life who are polluting our world and stealing our wages. It points out a real need for people who have a "left" and ecological slant on things (like me) to figure out a way to have more contact with people like Jones and Bermas. I can see that they are entirely sincere in their beliefs and there is so much we agree on, but there are some big differences in our basic world views of how things work. Danse's, "the distinction is not between individualism and community but authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism" and the "quadrant" diagram seems to sum up at least part of the problem pretty well.
in a New World Order but not the type of New World Order these thugs have in mind. I believe in a New World Order where the Government is honestly elected by the people of this planet based on the fact that the New World Order is there to serve the people of this planet. Every man and woman is born with God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Government is there to serve us, not the other way around. I also don't believe in a Democracy where as 51% can dictate to 49% how to live. What if 51% voted to have gays put to death? See what I mean. I want a Government based on our Constitution and Bill of rights where all people are created equal and have the same chance to improve themselves. What they do with their lives is their business, not the Governments. As long as you don't hurt or step on others rights give it your best shot. As a member of AA I try to live by their 12 steps. If everyone lived by these God given steps the world would be a far different place than it is today. I have a feeling that the people of this small planet have a long way to go before that happens. By the way the film was great. Keep up the good work.
Very well made film!! This will really help to change the planet
Bermas did an excellent job with this subject matter. He covered a vast array of topics and seamed everything together in an easy to digest, credible piece of work. I am impressed. This film definitely defines "New World Order". I feel that this film will change society.
Excellent Jason Burmas & PrisonPlanet movie, thank-you Justin,
A lot of history lessons here, a lot thanks to Carol Quigley’s careful historical notes of how people associated with the Council on Foreign Relations gained such influence over academia and newspapers like The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, and the Washington Post .
Jason Bermas says towards the end of his film: “We are threatened by a superclass that control the flow of information, and hide technology from the public.” We then hear the voice of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s recorded during his 1961 farewell speech:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employement, project allocations – and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
We must be alert to the equal – but opposite danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific – technological elite.”
Jason Bermas comes back on saying:
“It is time to put down the remote control, to turn off your X-Box and start paying attention.
It is time to step away from every-day luxuries, and take action against the monolithic concentrate of evil in order to save what is left of humanity.
We must now trade in our apathy for ACTION, in order to defeat this invisible empire.”
Thank-you Jason Bermas, Alex Jones, Aaron Dykes, Rob Jacobson, Michael Whiteside, Michael McWhirter, Jason Douglass, Rob Deww, Janée Meadows, Peter Dale Scott www.peterdalescott.net , G. Edward Griffin www.freedomforceinternational.org , Mark Dice www.markdice.com , Cindy Sheehan www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com, Justin Martell, Eric Jackmann, Luke Rudkowsky, Matt Ryan, Tim Frudge, Jason Mandresh, Justin Keogh and all you others !
Jason is so right : Taking action WORKS ! Time is short though, since we still have the criminal elite embedded in our own security apparatus: they can get edgy and cause terror and chaos again if we do not make haste to identify the dangerous traitors among us, and take them away from their positions of control.
Alex Jones recently warned again of how we must stop a possible nuclear false flag in this 5 min interview with Max Keiser (on Iranian PRESS-TV!) www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ehxkOOhh-0
Warm greetings to the whole family of activists and awake people out there, the collection of lies broadcast by the "Mighty Wurlitzer" www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.html in scores of media, but most prominently in the New York Times of Sept 12th & 13th 2001 are finally collapsing !
Especially warm greetings to Montreal, who will will be hosting on May 3rd Prof. David Ray Griffin AND Richard Gage at the University in downtown Montreal : a good way to take action right now, is to CHIP-IN at http://world911truth.org/we-need-your-support-now The other good thing to do is of course to purchase "Invisible Empire" and give copies to friends who would benefit from learning a bit of history ! http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html
Eric in Brussels, Belgium http://patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html#Beeth
Invisible Empire.
Pros.
This video is excellent. It will wake up a lot more people to what is really going on. Hopefully it will make Jason Bermas a lot of money so he can keep doing what he is doing and does best.
A few cons...
I wish some of the speeches in the video were dated and some more of the people identified. Also George H.W. Bush was the 41st President. George W. Bush was the 43rd President.
Big Whoop. This film's positives far outweigh any negatives or criticisms. Just good to give a balanced feedback sometimes. Four out of Five stars. Probably Five.
Five
Yeah 5 stars for sure. Combine this with "American Conspiracies," and it's the most convincing package to awaken the most hard headed truth denier.
Great stuff
covers alot of ground! Nice shot of Mark Dice's bookshelf! A couple of good things may be coming our way......Goldman Sachs is in trouble and with a little luck it will only get worse........call your congressman and tell him/her you want blood and your 173 billion back....Jesse Ventura and Willie Nelson on King talking some truth in the MSM......Murrah victim families getting some exposure.......the tea parties at the very least have people talking and in the streets .............The elite have just put the old Clinton chestnut out to preach for calm among the peasants.............Iran says 911 is a lie to the UN...........more people than ever don't trust our leaders..........more people don't like the way our economy is going when people who want to work and their children can't find jobs.......the politicians are in rough waters and they know it may get even worse. Right on Power to the People.
Foundations crumbling.
Bill Clinton was on Larry King Live recently discussing the Murrah bombing. It may have been my imagination but he didn't seem entirely convincing with his false version of the events (and he's an accomplished liar.) Surely to god these people must be aware that the truth is becoming more widespread daily, and surely it must become difficult to continue to perpetrate an obvious lie. At some point even the slickest liars must find it painful to keep propping up the lie. I imagine it's like a pathological liar suddenly realizing he's the last person in the room who still believes what he's saying.
I feel the foundations crumbling and it probably won't be pretty when the empire of falsehoods collapses.
Either/or fallacy
The film contains a lot of interesting footage and information.
I won't waste time on praise, as others have and will do so in abundance.
I'd like to point out some of the fallacies with the filmmaker's over-arching vision.
"Collectivism" is pitted against "individualism". In fact, individuality and community reinforce one another. This has been affirmed in countless studies and anthropological examples. Real community necessarily includes common ownership of public resources, though the the role of the state remains controversial. In my article Ayn Rand in Uganda, I equated right wing "libertarianism" or "propertyism" with a political expression of psychopathy. I also explored the opinions of the "Founding Fathers" on the relationship between common ownership and individual freedom. The Federalists, who were, in essence, the "neocons" of their day, envisioned a strong central government to protect the interests of the rich. Jefferson and Franklin were different, and were closer to libertarian socialism.
A popular quotation (often attributed to Ben Franklin) amongst libertarians is that “democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”. Viewed through the prism of “representative” democracy under capitalism, this makes a certain amount of sense. Yet Franklin also remarked that:
[In Native American society] all property, indeed, except the savage’s temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.
Thomas Jefferson also noticed the relationship between common ownership and freedom of the individual. Employing the wolf/sheep metaphor in a different sense, he contrasted Native American society to that of Europe:
“Under presence of governing, [Europeans] have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep”. Whereas, amongst Native Americans:
Every man, with them, is perfectly free to follow his own inclinations. But if, in doing this, he violates the rights of another, if the case be slight, he is punished by the disesteem of society…Whenever there is, in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so extended as to violate natural right.
The reference to property and “natural rights” is especially interesting in this respect, since libertarianism equates inviolable property “rights” to “natural rights”. Jefferson turns the equation upside down. When the “laws of property” have been “so extended”, the “natural rights” of man become non-existent.
Read full article here:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/ayn-rand-in-uganda-2/
In "The Art of Walking the Razor's Edge - Reconciling Autonomy and Community", by Andrew Dinkelaker, the author debunks black and white conceptions of "individualism" and "community":
Traditionally, community and autonomy are viewed as opposite poles on a linear spectrum. The amount of individual 'autonomy' that can be permitted in any given society is conceived as inversely proportional to the extent that that society is considered a socially cohesive 'community'. The two principles resemble the the rise and fall of two people on opposite ends of a seesaw. As the value of individual autonomy is elevated, the capacity for community sinks - and vice versa.
These two principles are not mutually exclusive. And so we must constantly be on the lookout for theorists/activists who would focus on one while neglecting the other. People can operate in ways that are autonomous and interdependent at the same time. In fact, genuinely democratic forms of socio-political organization, which operate according to consensus-oriented processes, are forms that specialize in maintaining our focus simultaneously on both.
The distinction is not between individualism and community but authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. The either/or of black/white dichotomy is fallacious.
Read full article here:
http://quadrant4.org/razor.html
On World government
I'm in the process of writing an article on misconceptions about "world government". Here is an excerpt relevant to Bermas' film:
In any discussion of “world government”, the first thing we need to recognize is that we already have a de facto world government. William I Robinson describes the emerging transnational ruling class as a natural product of capital expansion – certainly not a conspiracy to destroy the golden goose:
There is a new transnational configuration of power. In part, this is where a transnational state comes into play, which is another novel aspect of the new epoch. The question is how can the transnational capitalist class exercise its political authority? Well, one way is through utilizing existing state apparatus in each country, and we have seen plenty of that. Another is through the transformation of existing international institutions, such as the old Bretton Woods institutions or the agencies of the United Nations system, and the creation of entirely new ones, such as the World Trade Organization. Transnational capital attempts to convert the structural power of the global economy over individual countries and over working classes in each nation-state into direct political authority or influence through this transnational state apparatus.
Transnational institutions attempt to coordinate global capitalism and imposing capitalist domination beyond national borders. The IMF, for instance, by imposing a structural adjustment program that opens up a given country to the penetration of transnational capital, the subordination of local labor, and the extraction of wealth by transnational capitalists, is operating as a transnational state institution to facilitate the exploitation of local labor by global capital. Although it is true that nation-state power and autonomy has declined in relation to transnational power structures, this image is somewhat misleading since these transnational power structures are localized within each nation by concrete social forces that are materially and politically part of the emergent transnational power bloc.
Take IBM (please). "According to Business Week, by the end of 2008, more than 70 percent of IBM's work force of 400,000 was abroad. In 2009 IBM reduced its U.S. employment by another 8 percent." The activities of IBM and other corporations are not designed to “destroy the American republic”; they are designed to maximize profit as per the mandate of capitalism. It just so happens that maximizing profit entails finding the cheapest labor force with the weakest governmental regulations. In business-speak, the decimation of the American work force is an “externality.
Imperialists long ago realized that allowing conquered nations to maintain their own flags and (puppet) leaders was more effective than attempting to erase tribal identities. The current de facto world government operates according to similar principles. It transcends the nation state while maintaining the myth of national sovereignty. It allows the free flow of capital while restricting the movements and rights of human beings according to borders drawn up by rich old warlords hundreds of years ago.
States allow for primitive nationalism – divide and conquer on a global scale. Creating a super-exploited class of Mexican laborers, for example, is an excellent way of channeling American aggression towards Mexicans rather than corporations. It is precisely the migrant’s “illegal” status which makes him or her a desirable employee. Ironically, the “minute men” of the world, in seeking to deny rights to migrant workers, actually exacerbate illegal immigration. Were they to join forces with the marginalized group, the utility of exploiting “illegals” would disappear.
It is likely that supranational institutions such as the EU and WTO will increase in number and power, with a more concrete “world government” coming into existence (before, in my opinion, dissolving, but that’s for another essay); yet this not likely to resemble either the utopian vision of an Einstein or HG Wells – both of whom advocated world government – nor the borderless bugaboo of the “illuminati” theorists. On the contrary, increasingly centralized and supranational power is likely to result in increasingly militarized borders.
As anthropologist David Graeber slyly notes:
It has become popular, of course, to talk as if the growth of trade and migration are making national borders increasingly irrelevant. Look at the same situation in terms of the last five hundred years. It’s easy to see that, while world trade has increased somewhat, overall migration rates are nothing like what they were one (let alone two or three) hundred years ago, and the only element that’s entirely new here is the presence of the borders themselves. The modern “interstate system,” which carves up the earth through thousands of highly patrolled and regulated borders, was only fully completed quite recently; and far from being eaten away by globalization, institutions like the IMF or WTO are entirely premised on it. The number of armed men patrolling the US border with Mexico has tripled or even quadrupled since the signing of NAFTA; before it, no one was even considering the idea of reinforcing the border with a giant wall.”
Intriguingly, the Pentagon’s report on global warming envisions the public positively clamoring for militaristic border patrols. Western nations will become "virtual fortresses…armed against an angry tide of people displaced by rising sea levels or unable to grow food, and running for their lives.”<
The process is already well underway in the United States, though Americans would do well to remember that walls keep people in as well as out.
Not a bad film, but plagued by the myriad fallacies of right-wing "libertarianism", a contradictory philosophy that pits everyone against each other, Hobbes' "war against all".
The economic model is failing
plain and simple it can't last another 50 years at current population levels under the same rules of the cheapest labor force with fewest regulations etc.
What if the Chinese grow their work force to 200 million.. a fraction of their population......who will compete with that? The economic model exists to support an oligarchy.........workers around the world are becomming obsolete.........just the leaps of technology and machine labor alone continue to diminish demand for workers much less the growing population of India. What if "secret and suppressed technology" was expanded? The new world order is designed with a world of diminished population levels.........useless eaters ............are future targets for a "break away civilization" with medical life extentions for the elite. The inherent conflicts of interest along with excessive greed are currently inflicting mortal wounds to the economic model even faster with transfers "theft" of wealth that are beyond the limits of any historical basis or projections for that matter. There used to be a saying about Life being a Banquet with most poor bastards starving to death etc. Well at the new feast too many bastards are gorging themselves... Is there an alternative ............can we all evolve together........yes there are some good ideas out there....radical change is unlikely but perhaps a shift over the next 50 years to the Human model via a social credit system which supports basic life requirements and allows for personal potential development for the betterment of Man and Earth could do the job. However, getting the cooperation of the oligarchy before they get us will be the key.
Thanks
Thanks, Danse, for your thoughtful comment.
So that was your own article at Dissident Voice that you posted a link to?
...
Hi Rm,
Yeah, that's mine. Thread has set a record for comments on Dissident Voice, but I'd love to hear from more people who classify themselves as "libertarians". The fact that I agree with "libertarians" on so many issues, ditto Marxists, liberals and conservatives, goes to show that perhaps we're not so far apart as we often think. In the end, we all want the same thing -- freedom -- we just have different opinions on how to get there. Debate is a good thing.
Trenchant critique
Thanks, Danse. This movement badly needs more competent theoreticians to give guidance in projects like this one that aim to give a broad overview of the current situation. It always intrigues and unnerves me that many of the people who are most visible in the dissemination of alternative hypotheses about 911 have what can only be described as a facile political outlook. All the raw enthusiasm and righteousness in the world can't substitute for the long, hard work of patiently and methodically strengthening the theoretical framework in terms of which one comprehends the current possibilities for real change. I don't wanna sound too cynical, but you get the feeling that if Avery, Bermas, et al. hadn't happened to stumble across 911 research, they might instead have started some over-earnestly political hip-hop outfit, rapping cringingly obvious lyrics over lame-ass beats, and trying really, really hard to break into the mainstream. Well, that might be a bit mean, I admit. But you know what I'm getting at.
DVD Content
For the first time ever, the secret agenda of the planet's ruthless Super-class is exposed in stark detail. This documentary film chronicles how men of power and influence have worked in stealth for centuries to establish an oppressive world government. Learn how this global oligarchy controls the populace through drug trafficking, money laundering, staged terror attacks, media propaganda and debt. The criminal controllers have successfully dominated the globe and are now in the final phase of consolidating power. Invisible Empire is a damning indictment of the globalists through their own words and documents. Worldwide tyranny isn't coming, it's here. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact. The New World Order is out in the open, all documented in stunning living color. Unelected bureaucrats are establishing regional unions under one superstate. Witness their plan for a global tax and a cashless surveillance society in which every man, woman and child is micro-chipped at birth. Invisible Empire will be more than just a film-- it is the culmination of years of research by Jason Bermas into the inner-workings and most revealing public statements by the New World Order and the most trusted stewards of their dark vision. 'Invisible Empire' promises to unveil the long-term agenda for world control, just as Fabled Enemies and Loose Change Final Cut forever stripped away the facade of the official story of 9/11 and exposed the dark truth that lies behind. Jason Bermas joins with Alex Jones, producer of The Obama Deception, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, TerrorStorm and more than 20 other key titles for your understanding of the real world, all available on DVD at Infowars.com or for download in High-Quality at PrisonPlanet.tv
sadly, this film plays like a scatological first draft. . .
. . . and could have used some serious editing.
in general, it seems like jason (and alex?) tried to cram way too much info into one film and then rushed to deadline. there is an ongoing failure to connect the dots factually, and heavy reliance on accusation and speculation.
in particular, the "hi i'm jason" intro is awful, and the inordinate amount of time spent focusing on the many people who used the term "new world order" doesn't help. meanwhile, there is not enough analysis of how the drug trade plays into things. ironically, during the iran/contra segment, jason makes extended use of the pervasive mainstream media coverage of iran/contra, which begs the question: "why did these supposed NWO activities get so much mainstream media attention, if the mainstream media is as totally controlled by NWO architects as the film alleges?" most distressing of all was jason's parting line that all caring viewers "trade in your apathy for action" without even a suggestion of a hint as to WHAT can be done once we put down our remotes. this hollow "call to action" unwittingly plays into the hands of the alleged NWO architects by reinforcing our feelings of disempowerment.
in short, i found this film to be a terribly disappointing presentation of issues that really do matter. there's a wealth of information here, but it needs to be presented more professionally. inclusion of some opposing viewpoints would help.
maybe the second cut will be better. i hope so. but it would have to be worlds better before i'd consider recommending or circulating the film to anyone, as alex obtrusively suggests about a third of the way in.
I disagree. This film is top grade. I will wait for your film.
I personally like the intro "Hi, I'm Jason". It is real. Everyday people can identify with Jason. If you have ever talked with Jason, he is a "regular guy", friendly and easy to converse with. (Bermas was an ordinary guy who happened to see some graffiti over the urinal ...and this message prompted him to start investigating what was going on.)
Prior to this film's release, I was trying to think how a film presentation could be designed which tied the many facets together into something entertaining and easy-to-digest, but also maintain credibility. This would be a tough project. Jason hit the perfect design in my view. He utilized mainstream clips to keep credibility, and sequenced topics into something which an ordinary person could understand.
A film covering this subject matter could easily be 10 hours long, but also become extremely dull for an average viewer. Jason did an excellent job of blending the right mix. He has been working on this project a long time.
dennis55, Maybe I will change my mind when your "New World Order" film comes out.
I am glad, Dennis55 that you also agree there is a wealth
of information in this film about issues that really do matter.
I strongly disagree however, when you say that Jason gives a "hollow "call to action" " which would "unwittingly play into the hands of the alleged NWO architects by reinforcing our feelings of disempowerment". Not at all! Jason is already succeeding at giving a better idea and definition of the concept of NWO to the man in the street, and Alex Jones is encouraging us to spread its history educating message far and wide. It is a good thing to hear that you would prefer more, and a more professional academic presentation: there it is: Your empowered call to action!
Of-course, different people would need different strokes.
Academic people can be given Richard Gage’s DVD “The Architecture of Destruction”, or the six academic articles of American Behavioral Scientist of February 2010 : http://www.911blogger.com/node/22774#comment-228155 .
Jason Bermas’ film has the high merit of giving more historic texture to this “New Century’s Buzzword” New World Order. The concept of “New World Order” differs, depending on who is uttering it. But it is important to distill where the pattern is coming from, and the philosophy of Cecil Rhodes, the Chatam house and the Council of Foreign Nations. The clip where Hillary Clinton expresses her gratitude to the setting up of a Washington DC antenna of the CFR “so that we will know what to think and what to do here in Washington” (loose translation from memory) is absolutely memorable. It is quite amazing, how much influence these often well meaning and intelligent people have had on academia and the press: here is a small excerpt from “Tragedy and Hope” by Prof. Carol Quigley,(1966) http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/tragedyandhope.htm
More than getting over the “collectivism” / “individualism” dichotomy that Danse talked about, I think the big question is how we will deal with the “good / evil” dichotomy.
In order to shake off the horrendous filth and slime that the United States has gotten itself into by killing 3000 of its own Citizens in cold blood in order to blame it on “Al Qaeda” and “Islamic Extremists”, followed by charging into two illegal wars, killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people, it will need a very serious and lengthy truth and reconciliation commission.
There, we must drop the “good” / “evil” dichotomy, and only criminally prosecute those who are responsible for crimes against humanity. The others will need to be confronted with the nefarious consequences that the neo-con elite, banksters and complicit media have brought on to the people, and of-course fraudulently obtained resources must be returned to the collectivity, which needs to be controlled by the people through an accountable democratic voting system, and not be funneled off to Halliburton & military industrial complex friends via the Bank of England.
The United States will pull through this whole ordeal hopefully as wiser World Citizens who gain their wealth on good education and morals, and not on exploiting other more impoverished regions in the World. The people who wrote “The Project of the New American Century” were not all evil, but they were clearly wrong, and the mixture of philosophy and criminality that led to such miscreants as those who engineered the mass murders of 9/11 and the ridiculous crime against humanity idea to go off and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq that followed, must be confronted and analyzed quickly, before the expensive imperialistic adventures completely bankrupts what is left of the American economy and its moral standing in the world.
I am confident we will be able to pull through IF WE MAKE HASTE of Jason Bermas’ call to action!
Agree...there are flaws.
For example, the premise of a one world government being evil is wildly speculative. Let's say a single government is put in place the right way ie, end of wars, single currency, freedom for all, etc. This could potentially be great. Our constitution is an example of that and has formed the core principal in the way this country has been run. This film fails to establish a connection to why a one world government would be bad.
The film also states that people will be slaves under a one world gov (OWG). This is not necessarily true. This would arise more from an economic system than any government policy...although, gov policy could potentially limit this. You see, businesses are in business to make money. They see an opportunity to make more money and increase their bottom line and take it. Comcast for example, has increased their prices steadily over the years. They are now in a monopolistic position. Success breeds success. We will become slaves to corporations who ream us...not from a gov. Perhaps Karl Marx is ultimately right, that socialism (an economic system) is the next phase of capitalism. The Russians perhaps needed to be capitalist first...and that is why they failed.
You can have "world rulers" for your life. Not for mine.
I like having control over my life. The closer or more localized my sphere of influence, the better. I can control my body and health better than the government or a corporation or a distant group. I can control my family better than a far off entity. I can handle my neighborhood better than a Federal agency. I prefer that controlling influences to be localized and volitional.
Go ahead...subscribe to the decrees of a far off entity if that is what you want. You have that choice. But don't have it mandated for me.
I think you misunderstood
I was critiquing the film in regards to the lack of connection between OWG and evil. There is the potential that a OWG could be great. Imagine taking the 60 - 65% of the National Budget and spend it on something different than arms/defense...because war will be obsolete.
I understand your concerns about localism, and the examples you give are great and valid. There is still however a need for a larger sphere of influence and regulation. What happens upstream can effect you. Resources need to be managed accordingly. I'm guessing you don't have an oil well in your locality (you might, most don't)...you get the point.
What Marx Said
sweetwood,
Volume Three of Das Kapital presents Marx's grand analysis of how the Labor Theory of Value is not contradicted in the Capitalist society; before Volume Three came out many wondered if the Labor Theory of Value was correct because if it was then that would mean that companies that introduced labor saving machinery should make less profit, while complimentary companies in the same industry that were labor intensive would make more profits. Critics said the aforementioned disparities of Profits should be seen if Marx was right, but no such described disparities were seen.
Marx explained this seeming contradiction in Volume Three of Das Kapital (which the Austrian School economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk predicted Marx would say!) that the value created by labor (the total of which is Profit) is equalized by the competitive nature of Capitalism (profits are equalized by competition for capital), which is why one doesn't see the labor intensive companies doing better than the less labor intensive companies in the same industry.
Now Böhm-Bawerk didn't only predict how Marx would square his Labor Theory of Value with the observable world, he also had a critique waiting for Marx's explanation! Böhm-Bawerk said that before profits have a chance to equalize in any particular industry where labor saving devices are introduced, that it is always the case that those companies in the industry that introduced the labor saving devices are the ones that have the greatest profits. Always!
Lenin knew what he was doing regarding the economy of the USSR, as did all those who came after Lenin. Before the USSR could be allowed to become Capitalist however, it first had to defeat its political enemies abroad: Us! The USSR couldn't defeat us by allowing free markets. Free markets would have quickly led to the people of the USSR demanding political freedom and throwing the Communists out of power. So the Communists instituted not a Socialist system (that can only come from advanced Capitalism according to Marx, and Lenin knew Marx was right), but a temporary government-run command economy. Temporary meaning until the enemies of Bolshevism were defeated.
The USSR still doesn't have a Capitalist economy. There is no freedom of trade in the USSR. The USSR's major source of income is its earth-based resources. I say the USSR because it STILL exists. The so-called collapse of the USSR in 1991 was a ruse. Read KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn's book 'New Lies For Old' for more on what has been going on in the USSR since the death of Stalin:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13022045/Anatoliy-Golitsyn---New-Lies-for-Ol...
As far as a OWG with American participation, that is bull. The USSR/China have a OWG in mind, not America. Sometimes Alex jumps the gun in his analysis of American intentions.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
brian:
Marx on labor and machinery:
The "most immediate effects of machinery on the worker" which Marx describes are all negative: the introduction of machinery is used by capital to impose work on women and children, to prolong the working day and to intensify labor. The great paradox which Marx sees in the capitalist use of machinery appears fully elaborated here: the machine reduces the need for muscle power "”which should lighten labor"” but draws in and exhausts women and children; the machine makes it possible to produce more in a shorter period "”which should lighten labor"” but it is used instead to prolong it; the machine which allows one to accomplish the work of many faster than ever "”which should lighten labor"” is used to make the one work at an exhaustingly rapid pace.
"Hence too the economic paradox that the most powerful instrument for reducing labor-time suffers a dialectical inversion and becomes the most unfailing means for turning the whole lifetime of the worker and his family into labor-time at capital's disposal for its own valorization."
--
This is essentially correct. As David Noble points out:
During the Industrial Revolution "Capital invested in machines that would reinforce the system of domination [in the workplace], and this decision to invest, which might in the long run render the chosen technique economical, was not itself an economical decision but a political one, with cultural sanction." [Op. Cit., p. 6]
"U.S. Manufacturing industry over the last thirty years . . . [has seen] the value of capital stock (machinery) relative to labour double, reflecting the trend towards mechanisation and automation. As a consequence . . . the absolute output person hour increased 115%, more than double. But during this same period, real earnings for hourly workers . . . rose only 84%, less than double. Thus, after three decades of automation-based progress, workers are now earning less relative to their output than before. That is, they are producing more for less; working more for their boss and less for themselves." [Op. Cit., pp. 92-3]
Noble continues:
"For if the impact of automation on workers has not been ambiguous, neither has the impact on management and those it serves -- labour's loss has been their gain. During the same first thirty years of our age of automation, corporate after tax profits have increased 450%, more than five times the increase in real earnings for workers." [Op. Cit., p. 95]
In recent years this trend has continued. In the United States, for example, between the 1955 and the 1995 the output per capita doubled, yet working hours did not decrease but increased.
--
Your claim that "socialism can only come from advanced capitalism" is patently absurd. 99% of our history on planet was defined by socialist communities (anarcho-socialist, properly defined). However, the idea that socialism and industrialism are intertwined was indeed promoted by both Marx and Lenin, who believed that socialism could not become from a "backwards peasant society" such as Russia. Thus, Lenin himself referred to the Bolshevik system as “state capitalism”. His idea was to appropriate the means of production developed by capitalism in its “military imperialist stage” (his words), including “Taylorist techniques” of “scientific management”, and transform the “backward peasant society” of Russia into an industrial powerhouse.
You wrote:
"Free markets would have quickly led to the people of the USSR demanding political freedom and throwing the Communists out of power."
The first thing the Bolsheviks did was to destroy the nascent socialist institutions that developed prior to and during the revolution -- Soviets, factory councils etc. They also went to war against the anarchists.
Your contention that "free markets" are correlated with "political freedom" is absurd, and runs contrary to the entire history of capitalist development. The Bill of Rights was "shoved down the throats" of the federalists by the more democratic elements of the society, notably the anti-Federalists, who envisioned a more decentralized, democratic and socialistic society.
The history of capitalist development shows an inverse relationship between capitalism and political freedom. Professors Jessica Wilson and Benj Hellie:
“…the emerging class of capitalist landlords and rich farmers launched a battle to dispossess peasants of their lands. By driving up rents, disputing peasant ownership in the courts, and foreclosing on debts, English landlords forced hundreds of thousands of peasants to give up their lands. As rich farmers took over these plots, constructed large farms, and paid increased rents to landlords, they also hired landless peasants as wage workers. Still, large numbers of dispossessed peasants resisted entering the labour market. Many erected small cottages on the common lands, hoping to survive there than sell their labour to an employer. As a result, the emerging capitalist class launched a war against the common lands, turning them wherever possible into their own private property”
“Once the rich and powerful had set in motion the destruction of the common land system (and the common rights that accompanied it), they sealed the process by turning to Parliament. There, in the midst of other rich landowners, they introduced private Enclosure Acts which enclosed the commons, gave legal title to it to rich landlords, and deprived the poor of vital sources of livelihood. Between 1760 and 1830, at least six million acres of common lands were enclosed by parliamentary decree (see McNally, Against the Market, pp. 7-14). These Acts often ignited a class war on the land as the rural poor fought desperately to preserve their livelihoods. But with the backing of Parliament, the courts, troops and superior weapons, the authorities crushed peasant resistance. The new capitalist order emerged, as Marx put it, “dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt”.
“Only when they were thoroughly dispossessed of both land held as personal possessions (often on some kind of lease basis) and of access to what were known as common lands did large numbers of the English poor turn to waged work and submit to the disciplines of the labour market.
“The creation of a landless class of wage workers—people who had no means of survival other than the sale of their labour—was at the very heart of capitalist development.”
There was, however, one alternative to wage labor, and many peasants preferred it over surrendering their autonomy to capitalists and becoming slaves: begging. It became very popular. Thus:
“In 1530, legislation decreed that sturdy vagabonds were to be whipped until blood streamed from their bodies, after which they could be imprisoned. A 1547 Act allowed a complainant to take anyone who refused work as a slave and to keep them in chains and whip them. According to a law of 1572, unlicensed beggars were to be brutally flogged and branded on the left ear (Marx, Capital, p. 896-7).
“Capitalism emerged, then, through violent and bloody struggles against pre-capitalist forms of life. Only by driving peasants off their land, enclosing the commons, tearing down the cottages of the poor, criminalizing “vagrancy”, and erecting a new system of punishment was a capitalist labour market created. Rather than a natural form of life that evolved spontaneously, “free market capitalism” was built by destroying previous arrangements.”
--
Your apparent obsession with America vs. Soviet Union is misplaced, imo. Neither nations are good models for the development of freedom. Indeed, if there's one thing modern history teaches us it's that both "free market capitalism" and "authoritarian communism" are dismal failures. There are plenty of alternatives, notably libertarian socialism, which the authoritarian Marx dismissed as "utopian". The same applies to "world government" vs. modern states. Neither are desirable because they centralize power and leave the decision making capacity in the hands of wealthy elites.
Both right wing "libertarians" and authoritarian Marxists reject the best possible solution, namely decentralized, participatory democracy. It's how we've lived for 99% of our history, and there's no reason we can't replicate it in the here and now, on a much larger scale by federating horizontally.
He Said It. I Didn't!
Danse,
I didn't say "socialism can only come from advanced capitalism." Marx said it!
As far as "free markets" are correlated with "political freedom", the Soviets could not allow the free association to buy and sell with whomever one feels like due to the threat that might cause to the USSR's professed historical mission.
America's reaction to the Communist threat as it exists today is THE reason we here in America are losing our freedoms. As you know, the Al-Qaeda threat was made up to continue the war that is still going on between the West and the USSR/China. That is the real reason why America is still trying to place a missile shield in Eastern Europe.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron! Since socialism has no basis to perform economic calculation (which Marx recognized, and why he would use the most vitriolic language against socialists and their half-baked socialist schemes), it can't be reconciled with Libertarianism.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
...
I didn't say "socialism can only come from advanced capitalism." Marx said it!
In that case we're in agreement, though both Marx and Engels studied so-called "primitive" communism or anarchism, and recognized points of contact between their theories of "socialism" and "primitive" society. Lest there is any confusion, I am not a "Marxist", though I agree with many of his critiques of capitalism (just as I agree with many 'libertarian' critiques of communism). Marx simply ripped off thousands of "socialist" thinkers before him and gave it a pseudo-scientific, authoritarian bent.
"Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron!"
You state this as a fact, but offer no proof. In fact:
Murray Bookchin points out that "respect for the individual, which Radin lists first as the first aboriginal attribute, deserves to be emphasized, today, in an era that rejects the collective as destructive of individuality on the one hand, and yet, in an orgy of pure egotism, has actually destroyed all the ego boundaries of free-floating, isolated, and atomised individuals on the other. A strong collectivity may be even more supportive of the individual as close studies of certain aboriginal societies reveal, than a 'free market' society with its emphasis on an egoistic, but impoverished, self" [Remaking Society, p. 48]
This individualization associated with "primitive" cultures was also noted by Howard Zinn when he wrote that "Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture. No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails - the apparatus of authority in European societies - were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong..." [Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress, 1492-1992]
As Max Horkheimer once observed, "individuality is impaired when each man decides to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society." [The Eclipse of Reason, p. 135]
See also my previous post regarding Jefferson and Franklin.
Notice that "primitive" societies were indeed libertarian socialist -- which is the way we have lived on planet earth for 99% of our time here. The allegation that our ancestors were living in an oxymoron might have come as a surprise. They held most land in common, while allowing for individual possessions and the retention of the entire fruits of one's labor. Pooling of resources occurred on a voluntary basis. We realized a long, long time ago, that common ownership of public resources maximized freedom because the diffusion of ownership and the power this entails allowed direct democracy and equal rights rather than autocratic decision making by a wealthy minority.
My essay "Ayn Rand in Uganda" explores these issues further:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/ayn-rand-in-uganda-2/
I am not a Marxist or authoritarian socialist or world government advocate, nor do I believe in the mythical "free market" by which individuals are forced to rent themselves to capitalists; there is another way by which autonomy and community can be reconciled, and by which freedom can become tangible. Alfie Kohn wrote that "our miserable individuality is screwed to the back of our cars in the form of personalized license plates." That's not freedom in my estimation, nor is wage slavery, which forces people to live as prostitutes and pimps.
The Not So Good Old Days
Danse,
you paint an overly romanticized account of what the Romans would call the Barbarians. One of the attributes of Roman society was the rule of law. Until the Romans came along a tribal chief could take anyone's property. Those not within the ruling elite of the Barbarian tribes were quite surprised to learn that property would now be recorded in the Civil Building, and that such property was not for the taking of covetous chieftains.
Indian tribes here in America were in constant war with each other before the Europeans arrived. Well, those wars are over now!
In primitive society socialist behavior is the norm because such societies are simple and composed of relatively small numbers of people. In today’s complex world, a socialist economy would be suicidal. As Friedrich Hayek said, "Price signals are the only means of enabling each economic decision maker to communicate tacit knowledge or dispersed knowledge to each other, in order to solve the economic calculation problem." In the good ole primitive days no such price signals were necessary. Today free market price signals are necessary for our survival.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
I don't romanticize
...Indian tribes. I only say that by and large, they had a more sensible take on individual rights and "democracy".
Your other comments re: "socialism" make no sense. For other readers, here's what Orwell had to say about Hayek:
[What Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to “free” competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them."
Quite obviously, "competition" produces winners, who than CAPITALIZE on their good fortune. Which creates monopoly. That's why "free market capitalism" is a pipe dream and nothing but.
Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth
Danse,
I like Orwell. However, I don't confuse so-called Capitalists buying off politicians with pure theory economics. Sure Capitalists are a danger, but so is scrapping the profit/loss function that serves economic calculation. The freer the markets, the better the economy functions.
As Mises and Hayek warned decades ago, Central Banks with their credit manipulation benefit the Capitalists, because they are amongst the first to get the newly created credit before it losses its value. As the new credit makes its way down the economic pipeline to persons like me, then the money has lost value. Later the artificially created credit causes the economic downturn.
I'm open to any suggestions that doesn't interfere with the profit/loss pricing system.
Read Mises' 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth' (see second link below). Published in 1922, it's only 30 pages long, but it sent a major seismic event throughout the Socialist world. Mises work sparked the great Socialist Economic Debate of the 1930s. Socialist economists were forced to come up with solutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) for the problems identified by Mises:
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Well..
This state of 'constant war' you describe was actually the peacekeeping strategy of the Erratic Retaliator, which is "Give as good as you get, but dont be too predictable."
In practice, this means that if Tribe A is not bothering you, dont bother them. If they do bother you, then by all means return the favor.
"Dont be too predictable" means that even if Tribe A isnt bothering you, it wont be a bad idea to make a hostile move against them, to let them know you're still there and havent gone soft. They will of course, retaliate, and once the score is even everyone can get together for a big reconciliation party and do a little matchmaking, because it's always a good idea to diversify the gene pool of your tribe.
This boils down to tribes staying in a state of perpetual readiness. This is evolutionarily stable, and it worked for 3 million years. To an outsider of our culture, it would seem very much so like a constant, low-level state of war, and in a way it is, but to view this as a defect of tribalism or a disorder to be fixed would be wrong.
Someone of our culture might wonder when Tribe A and Tribe B will put aside their differences and agree to peaceful terms. The answer is that they would do this when mountain sheep put aside their differences and agree to peaceful terms, or when elephant seals put aside their differences and agree to peaceful terms.
So tribal societies played the Erratic Retaliator strategy that worked for them for millions of years. They eventually DID try to put aside their differences when a new tribe appeared and began playing a different game, that of Annihilator. Only it was too late and today our culture (what we view as the One Right Way to Live) has destroyed native peoples and relegated them to reservations out of our way.
Clarity
Wonderful clarity!
Oklahoma City - April 19th is the 15th anniversary
The film touches on the Oklahoma City bombing around the 1:21 mark. Newer people to the 9/11 Truth movement might not be familiar with the Oklahoma City bombing.
This is an excellent article which ties 9/11 and Oklahoma City together.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15075
April 19th is the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing.
THURSDAY April 15th - People (many who were affected by this coverup) gathered for a Press Conference.
http://www.reddirtreport.com/news.php?id=15062
In my opinion, the coverup of the Oklahoma City bombing is easy for anyone to see.
While the official government report states only a Ryder Truck was used, you can see the news footage from several TV stations which show that multiple bombs were definitely placed inside the secure Federal Building. Listening to the grand jury member (Hoppy Hiedelberg) is also very revealing.
YOUTUBE - If you have never seen some of the Oklahoma City coverage, this Alex Jones clip is pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Sipn9npq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7YCCduzahw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOBIUGBTB9w
Yes
Remember Terrance Yeakey.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/valor/
I do believe
we need a New World Order. One based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all men and women. Not some Orwellian nightmare these maniacs have in mind. What stumps me is how can they live with themselves?
Ford did not support US involvement in the First World War
At about 27 minutes into the video it is claimed that people such as Henry Ford, etc., were behind the First World War. It seems to me that someone is playing fast and loose with history here.
Bermas seems to fall for right-left dichotomy
While I applaud Bermas' effort to address this critical subject, I too was troubled by his falling into the right-left trap. His statement that many of the ruling elite who conceived and pushed for the New World Order were "collectivists", is erroneous and discredits his treatment of the subject for anyone with a decent background in American history.
Bermas appears to fall for the equating of socialism, communism, and collectivism with totalitarianism and authoritatianism, when in fact, what it seems he should be attacking is the merger of big government with big business, something Mussolini termed "fascism."
This complaint may seem trite and overly concerned with semantics, but as Bermas is attempting to both educate and elevate the discussion of the New World Order, he should not be making such glaring errors. For instance, he names capitalist and robber baron John D. Rockefeller as an early "collectivist," implying that while he created his power through capitalism, what he really wanted for the world was socialism. Try telling that to his workers, to whom he paid starvation wages. He even hired private armies at his plants throughout the country to bust unions and prevent strikes. (See the Ludlow massacre of striking miners, for instance.) The Rockefellers are also notorious for having succeeded in destroying the public transit systems throughout the country in favor of individually-owned automobiles.
The Rockefellers were monopoly capitalists, not socialists, and everything about their behavior and activities suggests this. To have missed this, and indeed to have flipped the conclusion backwards is unforgivable. Instead of using the term "collectivist", Bermas should have substituted the term "corporatist". Does he really believe that the Fortune 500 executives who sit on the CFR are all closet socialists? The only thing that all those involved in ushering in the NWO have in common is that they are all under the influence of massive corporate wealth.
Again, it seems the mistake is in equating any support of big government, and global governance as being indicative of socialism. Anyone familiar with the history of socialist movement would know that socialists saw themselves on the opposite, and opposing side from the capitalists, who were seen as their enemy. Bemas makes the mistake of casting people such as J.D. Rockefeller and David Rockefeller in the mold of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, as if they were not only working toward similar goals, but were part of a singular effort in history.
Bermas essentially places Trilateralists such as Jimmy Carter on the same New World Order team as Dick Cheney simply because they both worked for the same boss. The politics of liberalism, progressivism and neo-conservatism are treated as false divisions intended to mask that all of them are working towards the same New World Order. The differences in these ideologies are supposedly merely intended as a distraction so that we wouldn't realize that regardless of who's in office, it's the same New World Order agenda. While there is certainly some truth to that, I feel that presenting such simplistic explanations way oversimplifies a reality that is likely infinitely more complex.
Bermas seems to believe that the entire Left establishment is on board with a dictatorial New World Order ruled by evil capitalists simply because the Left has been promised "socialism" for the masses. Talk about selling out one's ideals; this scenario simply isn't believable. I truthfully don't know or understand why the Left seems to be onboard with the New World Order, but I suspect it is much, much more complicated.
Furthermore, we are asked to believe that a war criminal the likes of Henry Kissinger is one of the masterminds in helping to bring about this new, global brand of socialism. We should probably recall that Kissinger was behind the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia to supposedly stop the spread of communism from Vietnam and China. And he had the elected socialist president Salvador Allende overthrown by the US-backed Chilean general Agusto Pinochet. So why would well-meaning socialists from around the world be wanting to cooperate on bringing about Kissinger's New World Order? Why would lefty peace activists want to jump on board with the same war profiteers who have bankrolled virtually every major armed conflict since WWI? It makes no sense.
Furthermore, Bermas suggests that by creating a global government, we will only further enable the rule of the world's dictatorships. While making this statement, he flashes pictures of Gaddafi and Hugo Chavez. I find it interesting that to make this point, he used images of two targets of the New World Order. And Chavez, though he may harbor dictatorial aspirations was twice elected by the people of Venezuela despite efforts of the NWO-proxy state, the U.S., to have him permanently removed in a coup.
There is a larger agenda at work here, and Bermas missed it. It would have been better if he had stuck with what he knows, and what is known, and left the conjecture and theorizing for a speculative commentary at the end.
My suspicion is that the New World Order is split into two camps (one neo-con and one socialist), and neither one is in control. Those in control, with the power, are encouraging the two sides to work together because it is their belief that the NWO agenda will fail without the cooperation of BOTH sides. So the two sides grudgingly cooperate, both with the realization that if it pulls out, the other side might take power without them, and both jockeying for influence to implement their respective version of the NWO and to prevent the installation of the others' agenda. All the while fearing that at any time the entire operation could be exposed and forever tarnish their ideology, much as WWII has tarnished the fascist model.
Cheap Distribution?
Is anyone planning on distributing this film (and possibly the other new AJ film "police state 4") via cheap dvd duplication on websites such as 911dvdproject.com and onedollardvdproject.com, etc?
"Good film but...": one more complaint
This film has already stimulated lots of good comments, and I have just skimmed through them and will read them more thoroughly later. Like some other people, I found a lot to like in the film, as well as in "Fabled Enemies", but think that some of his criticisms of "socialism" and "collectivism" are misdirected. Another area that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is that Bermas says that efforts to slow or stop world population growth and confront global warming are part of the "Globalist's" control plans to kill us off and tax us to death. I'm not going to try to analyze this thinking here, and as I said, there have been some pretty classy analyses in the earlier comments, but I just wanted to add that "ecology" is something else I think Bermas doesn't get right. "Democracy Now" has spent the last week broadcasting from the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia. I cannot conceive of how the people Amy Goodman talked to there could be part of an elitist plot to take away our rights and ruin the world!
I agree Bermas and Alex Jones on a lot of things, and Jones has really gotten out the message about 9/11 and some other hugely important issues, but they seem to have a sort of blind spot about recognizing that big business corporations are what needs to be fought against and exposed. They talk about the CFR and the Bilderburg and "Globalists" as if they were some evil sorcerers in a secret cave rather than the big business capitalists of everyday life who are polluting our world and stealing our wages. It points out a real need for people who have a "left" and ecological slant on things (like me) to figure out a way to have more contact with people like Jones and Bermas. I can see that they are entirely sincere in their beliefs and there is so much we agree on, but there are some big differences in our basic world views of how things work. Danse's, "the distinction is not between individualism and community but authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism" and the "quadrant" diagram seems to sum up at least part of the problem pretty well.
I Believe
in a New World Order but not the type of New World Order these thugs have in mind. I believe in a New World Order where the Government is honestly elected by the people of this planet based on the fact that the New World Order is there to serve the people of this planet. Every man and woman is born with God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Government is there to serve us, not the other way around. I also don't believe in a Democracy where as 51% can dictate to 49% how to live. What if 51% voted to have gays put to death? See what I mean. I want a Government based on our Constitution and Bill of rights where all people are created equal and have the same chance to improve themselves. What they do with their lives is their business, not the Governments. As long as you don't hurt or step on others rights give it your best shot. As a member of AA I try to live by their 12 steps. If everyone lived by these God given steps the world would be a far different place than it is today. I have a feeling that the people of this small planet have a long way to go before that happens. By the way the film was great. Keep up the good work.