Be INFORMED

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Chris Hedges' Disturbing Dystopian Vision Of The Present

by Lefty Coaster     Tue Dec 28, 2010     Original Article

I found Chris Hedges' dystopian vision of the present to be disturbingly close to the mark. I had to share it with everyone here even though I don't take quite as dim a view as Hedges does of our present predicament.

2011: A Brave New Dystopia

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from "Brave New World" to "1984." The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy.

Hedges talks about inverted totalitarianism which he describes like this:

In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.

Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, "block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression."

The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence.

Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.

As a protester at the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle I well remember being type cast in the MSM as anarchist rioters when 99% of the protesters taking part were non-violent. This year the MSM still erroneously refers to the WTO protests as riots. In fact the vast majority of the violence involved came from the Seattle Police when they attacked mostly nonviolent protesters.

Hedges goes on to argue that our Orwellian Dystopia of subtle manipulation is transforming into a Dystopia relying on brutal oppression more like that found in 1984.

Hedges whole unsettling essay is well worth reading.

2011: A Brave New Dystopia

Monday, December 27, 2010

Hillary Clinton Gearing Up For 2012 Presidential Run?

 

   That is what Iranian reporter Amir Mokhtar-Rajabi seems to think.  English translation by way of Watching America

Javan, Iran
The Flirtations of Hillary, 63, with
the 2012 Presidential Elections:
The Clintons’ Fantasy

Translated By Remo Alexandri       20 December 2010

Edited by Amy Wong

Iran - Javan - Original Article (Persian)
It seems that these days Hillary Clinton, U.S. secretary of state, is going through an odd change of heart.
It was only a few hours before the negotiations between the 5+1 group and Iran, when at the Manama Summit in Bahrain, she suddenly forgot about her habitual and repetitive attacks on Iran’s nuclear activities and declared that Iran possesses the right to enrich uranium. She not only supported Iran’s nuclear program but also made an effort in flirting with, and capturing the heart of, the (now-fired) foreign minister of Iran, Manouchehr Mottaki — even if it only resulted in engaging in small talk and greetings with him.
Her odd change of heart continued through last Saturday at a Brookings Institute dinner reception, which included guests such as Ehud Barak, current Labor Party leader and defense minister of the Zionist regime; Tzipi Livni, Kadima party leader and a critic of the Zionist regime’s current administration; Salam Fayyad and Saeb Erekat, officials from self-governing territories and George Mitchell, U.S. special envoy to the region. There, she decisively uttered the word “state” in reference to a Palestine that should come into fruition once the negotiations are concluded successfully. The U.S. secretary of state, speaking hopefully, insisted that whenever an opening in the negotiations is closed, another path should be sought until the ultimate goal of a two-state solution is reached.
It is not clear why Clinton has become so kind and tender in the past one to two weeks — not only recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium but also supporting the formation of a Palestinian state. There are precedents for high-ranking American officials talking one way while in power, and then once they are no longer in power, they begin talking about supporting the formation of human rights organizations in defense of rights for all nations, as if they weren’t the same people and officials they were before. However, it appears that Mrs. Clinton is using this tactic — previously used only by ex-American officials — while still in power.
There is hardly anyone among the observers of international affairs who is not aware of Clinton’s staunch enthusiasm and support for the Zionist regime and her opposition to Palestine, resulting in her bullying and intimidation of Iran. But how in the world did she suddenly change her stance at the Manama Summit and Brookings Institute reception and become an advocate for Iran and Palestine? Is it because — as reported by various sources — she is trying to distance herself from Barack Obama and create an atmosphere for competing with him in the 2012 presidential elections? Does the Democratic Party support this policy and act contrary to its usual backing of the incumbent candidate for the presidency? Has the Democratic Party concluded that Obama wasn’t who they thought he might be as president, failing to maintain the voters’ loyalty and persuade them to continue their support of U.S. government policies? Is the Democratic Party really in the process of transitioning from Obama to Clinton as its candidate in the 2012 presidential elections? Is this why the current U.S. secretary of state has taken such mild stances as compared to before, especially on issues such as Iran and the most complicated international issue, namely the issue of peace in the Middle East?
Is there any real chance for peace in the Middle East with the current policies of the United States and the Zionist regime or not? For Palestine, the minimum condition for peace is the withdrawal of the Zionist regime to the 1967 borders that were crossed as a result of the Six-Day War in June (during Ramadan), resulting in the occupation of the disputed territories by Tel Aviv. Currently, the countries that show interest in the peace process insist on the restoration of these borders. Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, three Latin American countries in support of the two-state solution, recognize the 1967 borders. During the Six-Day War waged by Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, the Zionist regime succeeded in occupying East Jerusalem (the West Bank of the Jordan River), the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights (Syria) and the Sinai Desert (Egypt), of which the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Golan Heights remain under Zionist occupation. Currently, Tel Aviv shows no intention of withdrawing from these territories. Therefore, it is impossible to be at ease and optimistic about the peace prospects in the region, unless the occupiers withdraw from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as they did from the Sinai Desert (1982) and the Gaza Strip (2005). The strategic position of the Golan Heights and the ongoing settlement constructions by the Zionist regime in the Gaza Strip obscures prospects for peace.
Has Mrs. Clinton, 63, found a new way to peace, as she so hopefully spoke of it at the Brookings Institute? Is she really concerned with the peace process or merely plotting her race against her perpetual rival, Obama, 49?
Were she to succeed in becoming the U.S. president, the Clintons would be the first couple in the history of the United States to have both held the office.

© 2010 Watching America and WatchingAmerica.com. All Rights Reserved