Don't frighten the horses!

The attacks in Paris a week ago have all the hallmarks of another false flag attack and yet, to point out inconvenient facts which contradict the "official story" is to be a "conspiracy theorist". Critical Thinking, which seeks to debunk myths and share information and analysis which more closely "fits" events, occasionally comes under criticism from natural allies and sympathisers who are working for a better world - by revealing inconvenient facts, they contend, we're in danger of "frightening the horses".

Over the last four years, within the Occupy movement and beyond, a debate has raged between "reformers" and "revolutionaries". The former are working assiduously to foment change within the existing paradigm: ie. to use regulation and tax to redress the iniquities within the political economy.  Others contend that the current political economy is so corrupt and broken that the structural flaws can only be fixed through revolution, which carries connotations of Madame Guillotine in the French Revolution and the massacre of the Russian Romanov dynasty in 1917.

But it is not a binary choice, reform or bloody revolution.

The first question is: does Critical Thinking's analysis of the political economy withstand scrutiny? That the levers of power are controlled by the Structural Elite; that power is derived from and exercised through three fundamental flaws in the political economy: minority control of land, money and labour. If this is true, removing these flaws is an essential prerequisite for change. Furthermore, we've discovered that the economic system evolved symbiotically with hierarchy - those who dominated in the past by conquest helped shape the political economy for their own benefit, becoming absolute rulers. Bankers exploited the alchemy of interest on money to hold sway over these kings, emperors and dictators. The advent of representative democracy didn't remove this power of the emerging Structural Elite but it became hidden behind layers of complexity, false narratives and misinformation, which is the world we inhabit today. There is ample evidence to support this assertion.

At the turn of the 20th century, Henry George's Progress and Poverty had created momentum for a shift from taxing income to taxing land (LVT - land value tax); it was supported by both Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George but was quashed by vested interests, landowners. The social credit movement which advocated a form of redistribution/citizens dividend was similarly buried by vested interests in the 1930s. Sharing the value of the commons is vital to fix the political economy, in addition to prohibition of interest (usury) and dissolution of hierarchy.

Contemporary advocates of LVT tend to see this as the panacea to all our problems; that somehow if only we could get the "powers that be" to listen and implement LVT, it will "inexorably lead to structural change". History and common sense suggest not.

LVT proponents have been knocking on the doors of politicians and others for decades; politicians listened attentively to what LVT advocates had to say and then carried on as if they'd never spoken. Why? Because such fundamental decisions are beyond politicians' pay-grade. LVT may gain traction among voters; politicians may even commit to it but the puppet masters (Structural Elite) will dilute, distort and discredit initiatives with all the levers of power under their control, not least media which determine the outcome of elections. They've done it for centuries and they hold more concentrated power today than ever before.

Critical Thinking's analysis has peeled back the layers of (contrived) complexity and confusing contradictions to arrive at the fundamental drivers of the political economy. We've drawn extensively on the work of those advocating LVT, citizens income (dividend) and banking reform but what fundamentally determines the shape and impact of the political economy is hierarchy. Research and analysis of hierarchy reveals that whatever system is used: slavery, feudalism, dictatorship, theocracy or representative democracy, they are all hierarchical and have but one purpose, to protect the interests of those at the top, the Structural Elite.

This is why gradualist reform, even if successful, will not inexorably lead to structural change but merely offer temporary respite, as it did in the post-war creation of the welfare state in the UK. In the US, and more generally, banking power had been rolled back in the wake of the Wall Street crash. Inequality narrowed dramatically in the 1930s and only started to recover once the banking elites had sabotaged "progressive" governments in the US and UK - killing Kennedy and undermining Wilson.

Banking and intelligence services have had a long symbiotic relationship dating back to Nathan Rothschild's manipulation of the London Stock market in the immediate aftermath of Waterloo. Having financed both sides of the war and relying on his "intelligence" network reports of Wellington's victory, he implied the war was lost and hoovered up a large proportion of British national wealth in the ensuing panic. Daily Pickings covered HW Bush's intelligence/black ops credentials, banking connections and likely culpability for JFK's assassination along with associates from banking, oil and intelligence.

Bloody revolution is unlikely to be successful but if it did succeed in overthrowing governments (à la Arab spring contrived by the usual suspects), it would merely replace one set of corrupt regimes with another set - Sisi for Mubarak or Stalin for Tsar Nicholas II - hierarchy is always corruptible which pre-literate humans well understood. See Palaeolithic Politics. In any event, with the level of sophisticated surveillance and weaponry controlled by the Structural Elite, the odds for successful revolution are poor.

The battle is for people's minds and until the advent of the internet, it has been asymmetric warfare. This temporary window of opportunity must be grasped, knowledge and understanding shared to shift human consciousness. The window is temporary because the curtains are coming down; a large proportion of Google's early funding came from the CIA and much of the technology from the military-intelligence complex; this doesn't just pertain to Google - all the major digital players are involved. We're all well aware of the activities of NSA, GCHQ and Israeli cybersecurity firms which permeate government and corporate computer networks. PSYOPS through social media are rampant. Legislation to "tame" the internet is being pushed in the US and across Europe. The internet is the final front in the struggle for freedom - lose it and we are lost.

We are currently engaged in the Hegelian dialectic - divide and control.

One person could never hope to research and analyse all the elements and connections of the political economy but each of us can contribute to the effort by sharing and learning. The onus is on us to learn, not tell. We are at a pivotal point in human history and the immediate threats to our civilisation are unprecedented: collapse of the global economic system leading to civil war; manipulated mass migration to destabilise Europe; geopolitical wars extending from the Middle East, through the Eurasian Heartland, pitting Russia and China versus the US empire, with the additional excitement of Japan limbering up for war on China. (George Orwell seems to have had uncanny foresight even if his timing was off - 1984).

We need to recognise that we (humans) are unique individuals whose futures are mutually dependent and intermeshed with our environment. Change will come from people to people communication and collaboration, bypassing all hierarchical institutions which corrupt the best intentions, to co-create harmonious local, national and regional communities, independent of the prevailing hegemony.

Withdraw consent to be abused and oppressed, first and formost by distorted narratives to instil fear and compliance. If we accept the prevailing narratives for war, austerity, greater (in)security, environmental destruction etc., we are lost.

In that event, will the last person standing please leave a note:

Human civilisation collapsed through permanent, institutional hierarchy

In the words of David Graeber in the Paleolithic Politics talk, referring to temporary hierarchical cities created for meeting and ritual:
"They used to set the thing up and rip it down and set it up and rip it down. One day they didn't rip it down; they forgot they could rip it down, and here we are."

So we must risk frightening the horses because by confronting and eliminating fear with knowledge, we together become a potent force for change.

Please register to post comments