Issue 337 Control (information) May 16, 2014

Information control is essential for any dictatorship or tyrannical government to control the hearts and minds of a people.  But what are the ways they do so?

White Propaganda: White Propaganda is propaganda that makes a country, a group or organization look positive or beneficial.  It can be used to make a losing side look like it is winning by manipulating perceptions.  This also affects the enemy (or dissidents) as it makes them feel as if their efforts seem useless.  So when a government spins information to make things look better than they really are it is white propaganda.

Black Propaganda:  The opposite of the white version, Black Propaganda is about demeaning the enemy.  It makes them less human and viler than they may actually be. So when the Japanese portrayed Americans as beasts and us Americans the same way it was a form of Black Propaganda.  This form of propaganda was used by the Nazi's to demean the Jews, the Gays, and the disabled as well.  Obviously this is all about portraying countries, groups or people in a negative light.

Censorship:  Censorship is where certain information is purposely withheld from public knowledge.  This can be done by the government, or even groups or people.  Here it is about preventing information that may counter the narrative being put forth by a government.  So any information that may display a negative light on the government, or make them look like hypocrites will be withheld.  Other forms of this may be used to ensure that particular morals are upheld.  Similar to how in the Cold War a censorship office in the United States prevented displays or information that was either "obscene" or purported the ideology of the Communists.  In this way, they could prevent the "corruption" of the people.

Disinformation:  The most powerful form of information control, it combines propaganda, censorship and an element of storytelling to control information.  So basically it is the creation of a believable story line and supported by the three aforementioned forms of information control (sometimes with planted evidence or information) in order to either make things look positive or negative, or to steer the population in a certain direction and away from what the group controlling the narrative deems undesirable.  For instance in WWII the Pope hid Jewish families in the Vatican, to hide them from the Germans.  But a disinformation campaign by Joseph Stalin's intelligence agencies portrayed the Pope as complicit to Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.  Truth was that the Vatican had so many Jews being sheltered that they were living on the Vatican steps and in the hallways.  But until recently with information slowly being declassified everyone believed the disinformation that Stalin had put out to turn people away from the church and lean toward atheism which the communist government espoused.    

Conclusion:  As you can see, information control is powerful.  It can mean the rise and fall of nations and reputations.  Any government, group and organization can pull this off.  Think of how little we knew about the stock market crash in 2007/2008.  They withheld information and used propaganda until they could no longer withhold the information.  Mudslinging during election campaigns is propaganda as well with a small dose of disinformation depending on how creative the opponent can be.  So all I can tell you is trust but verify for you are not getting the full story in school or from the media in the first place, but spinets of information that they can cram in.  So who knows how much more there is to a story or to history that we are not being told.  Always remember, to do your own research and break out of the box that these con artists want you to stay in. 

Issue 336 Control (military) May 15, 2014

Keeping with history but also keeping with modern forms of control, the military has always played a role in controlling populaces.  Let's go over how they have been used.

Genocide:  One that typically comes to mind is genocide.  Used by the Romans, the Nazi's and even today by various African tribes, the military have been used to wipe out resistance or target populations throughout history.  During the Rwandan Genocide the Hutu's wiped out a large portion of the Tutsi population partly in support by the militia consisting of the Hutu majority.  In Russia, a protocol of extermination was used during the Cold War to wipe out undesirables in the Ukrainian region and the population replaced by ethnic Russians.  All done with the support of the military.

Fear:  The military has also been used as a replacement or as part of the police force.  They become instruments of intimidation and fear as the military is used to suppress dissidents like in China, in Tiananmen Square. In other cases they use them as blunt instruments of oppression by brutalizing members of the local populace by destroying their homes or just ransacking them.

Suppression:  Other times the targets of the military are simply assassinated of dissidents, suppression of demonstrations and even propaganda campaigns.  A leader can use them like tools to kill anyone they desire.  Think of Kim Jung Un and his regime in North Korea as he keeps the population under his direct control where if they smile wrong they can be shot.  The military even runs the prisons where dissidents are kept.

Conclusion: A military in the hands of a mad man, or if out of control can force a population suitably unarmed to do whatever it pleases. This is the nightmare that countries around the world face from secret police, or showy military dictatorships.  If not controlled and constrained in a similar manner to how the United States has with its civilian control apparatus, then we may just face a serious threat from those who would use the military to force people from their land, or to make them silent to the abuses they suffer.  

Issue 335 Historical Control May 14, 2014

I went over two forms of control this week so far, but have not touched upon one of history’s most sinister forms of control.  This form happened during the age when colonies were used as cash cows by the British and other Empires around the globe.  So here is how they manipulated an islands populace.

Step 1, replace the subsistence farming:  Subsistence farming is farming for food.  But when the British and the Dutch came to these island nations they had all the food crops replaced by cash crops like cotton, tobacco and the like. Basically whatever crops they needed for industrial use were grown on these islands instead of food. But how would this make the people there dependent?

Step 2, provide food:  As the local populace no longer produces their own food they must be provided for.  The British and the Dutch would have ships come in and deliver food and supplies to the locals to keep them alive and working.  In exchange they would load up the cargo of cash crops like the tobacco and cotton and make their way back to port. This is thus how they made the populations dependent and a little more as well.

Step 3, Suppress resistance:  If the local population would rebel, then the British and the Dutch simply stopped supplying food to the populace.  As the soil generally got depleted of nutrients by the cash crops and that it would take months for food to grow in general, starvation would take hold and weaken the populace of the colony.  Then when suitably weakened, the British and the Dutch would send in troops to suppress the populace and reassert their control. 

Step 4, continue back at step 2:  Basically, after a rebellion was suppressed the Colonial powers would again push the population to farm the industrial crops that they wanted.  The locals would be forced to submit or be replaced by locals from other communities to keep up production.  Of course the locals had no say in the matter as they would be starved to death if they did not comply.

Conclusion:  This is the most blatant and traditional form of control.  In fact it can still occur in the world today, but on different scales.  So it can happen in the home in the case of child/sex slavery, or on a national scale like Russia denying oil to other countries that are dependent on them.  Land locked regions can suffer the same fate as these island nations of the past.  Basically, it happened before and it can happen again.  This is my warning to you all, don't let it happen to you.

Issue 334 Control (water) May 13, 2014

Did you know that water is also a finite resource?  Water is required by the human body to survive every three days.  We use water to grow crops, to wash ourselves and our dishes, and to just survive in general.  So controlling the water is a very big deal.

Water as an element of control:  You usually do not hear of water being used in a fashion to control people, and yet it is feasible to do so.  Say there is a region of the country that has scarce water resources and you cut the pipeline off that supplied their water.  Would they be able to survive?  The answer is no.  It is impossible for any civilization to survive without a water source.  If you look at where people settled in the early days of mankind you will see they all settled by a water source that supplied fresh water.  As such they could grow their crops and drink to their hearts content.  With aqueduct and pipeline technology we as human beings were able to settle further and further away from rivers and lakes.  But an enemy can kill off an entire civilization simply by cutting off their water supply.  One similar situation is in California where a valley had its water cut off due to an endangered fish species.  The result is that they could no longer farm as they required that water to irrigate their crops.  This cutting off of their water may result in not only a loss in business, but the loss of their homes and higher food prices in the country.  As you can probably see now, water is a highly valuable resource.

Why not just get fresh water from the ocean?:  Ideas have been placed on desalinization of sea water and other salt water bodies to supply fresh water to communities.  The technology exists and is used in many countries around the world including the United States and many Arab countries.  But there is a catch.  In the process to desalinize water, it costs lots of energy.  As such paying for the fuel, and the facilities and even the filters are cost prohibitive. Unfortunately, the methods of desalination are still being researched to make it even more cost efficient, but results are moving at a snail’s pace. So this technology is used when the access to water is so scarce that there is no other choice.  To top it off these facilities may require special parts, which again must be supplied by certain manufactures.  So these facilities are also subject to control as if a part breaks or the filter expires, you will need a replacement from the person, company or country that makes it.  So they can say no to replacements and thus bring an entire country to its knees.  This is how precious water is, a country may be forced to beg so as to save its people from starvation.

Conclusion:  Water can and most likely will be used as an element to control people and even countries.  Like fuel, fresh water is limited based on supply, demand and the resulting cost.  Unless we somehow find other methods of supplying water or preserving it, we find ourselves with a shortage.  That shortage could mean another OPEC, but this time controlling the world’s water supply.  

Issue 333 Control (fuel) May 12, 2014

Fuels like oil and its derivatives are very important to industrialized countries around the world.  It allows us to heat our homes, generates electricity, and of course fuels our vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, planes etc.).  But what happens if that fuel was to be cut off.  This is the threat the United States and Europe face and I'll explain why.

Russian Control:  Russia controls much of the fuel in Europe.  In fact the closer a country is to Russia the more dependent they are on Russian oil.  This is because many of these countries either lack the resources for an alternative source of energy or do not have industries built to access their natural resources.  Therefor Russia becomes very powerful in deciding what they can and cannot do in the region.  Still scratching your head?  I will make it simple, Russia can force any country that relies on its oil to do what it wants by threatening to cut the oil off.  This is how oil is used as an element of control in Europe.  Russia has sway over the entire region due to their monopoly on oil there.  

OPEC:  Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is a menace to the United States.  Unlike Russia who holds sway over Europe, OPEC has sway over the United States in a different way.  OPEC can artificially raise the price of oil to influence United States policy.  While the United States gets most of its oil from Mexico and Canada, OPEC holds sway over the stock market when it comes to oil.  So if they hold back on production they can disrupt the market and cause prices to rise to whatever level they see fit.  As such they can make a nice profit or suppress policies in a country like the United States that would disrupt their profits.

Why fuel is important:  Oil is very important to commerce in general.  No train, or plane could run without it in our current energy environment.  We need it to fuel our cars and heat our homes.  So what would happen if the fuel ran out?  Nuclear power is limited due to the number of reactors, solar and wind are nowhere near energy efficient enough, and dams have a limited amount of power they can supply too. In short coal and oil fired plants produce most of the electricity per market share.  If fuel prices go higher it can causes businesses to fail, prices of goods will rise pricing people out of being able to afford food and medicine. Hospitals may be forced to close as they too will not have enough money or power to stay open.  Think of it, if you are diabetic, or are dependent on some form of technology for survival, how are you going to survive if the power goes out for an extended period of time.  The answer is that you won’t.  The elderly and the sickly will die first.  People who need blood transfusions or other treatments will also die because how can we store blood without power.  We will not be able to diagnose cancer patients due to the inability to use the machines we relied upon to diagnose.  Riots over food and other goods will create more havoc as all goods will become so scarce that bread alone may well be worth $100 or more.  It is a nightmare scenario that all nations fear.  If you were alive during the 70's you may remember the long lines for gas and the rationing that went on in the United States.  Well that will be the tip of the iceberg of trouble we all will have to face if fuel becomes too costly or inaccessible.

Conclusion:  Fuel is a tool that helps us get around, get to our jobs, to get things where we want them to go.  It is essential to commerce and our survival.  So far there is no replacement to fuels like oil and so we are currently dependent on oil for most of our needs like plastics and other products which are a byproduct.  So we have to account for this in all future needs of the County and the world. There is a reason why I like green technology.  One is that we reduce waste and our impact on the environment.  The other is that we no longer have to pay the power company money to keep our homes and businesses warm and cozy for we can hopefully begin to make solar, wind or even nuclear viable in the home itself.  In short, be reliant upon no one but yourself.

Issue 332 Joint Radicals May 9, 2014

If you have noticed, certain elements on both sides of the political isle want to limit your choices.  This ranges from who you can be with/friends with (gays vs. strait/people vs organizations), to even what you can eat.  It is these elements of the political right and left that share another form of radicalism.  That radicalism is them believing that they know best over the masses as a whole.  So here are some examples of this radicalism.

Food Choice:  Throughout the country both the political right and left have this notion that they must protect us from ourselves.  This includes food.  In New York City salt is banned from restaurant tables because of its apparent link to heart disease.  But is that not a conscious decision by each individual to add more salt to their food? 

 Republicans and Democrats also limit the choices on school lunch menus by their advocating healthier options.  However those "healthier" options are either not filling enough or do not taste good to the school children.  Some schools have even denied second helpings to students based on this health fascism culture on both sides of the political aisle.  As such there has been instances of children fainting in class due to a lack of food or nutrition. 

 Trans-fats and other food items or ingredients, because of their perceived unhealthiness (which is usually due to them being overeaten) have also become banned or restricted in both restaurants and from consumer products. However, is not the better solution to keep consumers informed of what they are eating?  Well even this can go overboard as places like restaurants would have to be forced to put calorie count, grams of fat and other information about the food they make on the menu.  Problem is that it takes money (lots of it) to do which may force struggling businesses out of business.  Those information boxes on food already are misleading as a high calorie count is not necessarily a bad thing as some people need that amount of calories, fat or sugars just to stay healthy.  Sure it is nice to know what you are eating, but having it pushed in your face or being used as a deterrent by government to steer you away from certain foods is downright dumb.       

Item choices:  In this case the tax system limits choices you make.  States, municipalities, and the Federal government itself tax foods, alcohol, restaurants and other items you buy to push you away from using them.  These are called sin taxes.  So you may pay an extra five to 45 cents just to buy a particular item.  For instance plastic bottles in the United States have an extra five cents tacked on each bottle you buy because the government does not want you to buy things like soda or things contained in plastic.  Tobacco products are also taxed highly despite people on the right, left and center of politics wanting to completely un-ban marijuana and its associated products.  Hypocrisy is the name of the game here.

Health choices:  The government also seeks to protect us from our own selves by controlling our health choices.  Obama-care (the Affordable Healthcare Act) forces people to buy healthcare from insurance companies or otherwise pay a penalty.  Basically, the government saw fit to decide that we cannot choose for ourselves if and when we needed health insurance and decided to force us all to get it.  Think this was strictly an idea from the political left, then think again as a similar idea by the Republicans was proposed back in the 1990's.  So now you may be forced to buy healthcare that either is un-affordable, violates your beliefs (as they may cover euthanasia or contraceptives which violates religious or moral beliefs), or very simply violates your choices as a whole. 

Conclusion:  These are some of the many small to big things that impact our lives with this radicalism of big brother knows best. We are forced to subsidize with our money planned parenthood, big oil, green technology, corporate welfare, and other items that the Federal government has no business spending our money on. If we want to give money to a green business or oil then we will simply buy their product.  If we want to spend or donate to Planned Parenthood or a charity of some sort then we will give our money to them by our own choice.  But government gets in the way and say that they decide who is worthy and thus our money goes to whomever they want and not what we want.  This radicalism has to end and to do it, we must elect people who do not have this radical notion of believing they know better than everyone else and elect people who will refuse to spend our money save for what the Constitution allows. 

Issue 331 Radical right on Immigration May 8, 2014

 The radical right has immigration confused with invasion, or at least some do.  Let us look into why they believe this notion.

Radical rightist view on immigration:  Here they believe immigrants steal the average American workers jobs (same in any country).  They also see a bunch of people unwilling to conform to the culture, learn the language or even embrace the same values as those already living in the country in the first place. But why believe this way.  Why should these people be rejected from working at businesses where they are legitimately hired and work?

Fear:  One reason they are rejected is fear.  Some people see them as a form of invader that corrupts the culture of the country.  They are used to people living in a certain way and when a person of another culture comes in, they experience a cultural clash which may make them question their own values.  People do not like feeling uncomfortable and so they reject these people.  Another reason is because of language.  There are those who automatically see an immigrant speaking in their mother tongue as scary for they cannot understand what is being said.  In essence the loss of that sense of security of knowing what the other person is saying makes others uncomfortable.  And finally the thing that makes people fear immigrants the most is reputation.  If they come from a crime ridden country or the people are from a country with a certain reputation, people will stereotype them and thus fear them based off of that stereotype.

Economic crunch:  Whenever times are ruff economically, people look for a scapegoat.  And the immigrant, legally here or not, is usually the one labeled the one responsible or as contributing to job losses.  Truth is they do not as they were hired in good times where there was plenty of jobs in the first place, but people who are angry and upset over losing their own jobs simply wish to vent.  (This can be characteristic of both the political left and right).

War time:  People also fear immigrants or those who look like them when in times of war.  So during WWII people feared the Japanese, the Germans, and to an extent the Italians in the country, which resulted in internment camps (concentration camps) to keep them away.  Similar fear and actions have happened again with respect to 9/11 and radical Muslims who turned to terrorism being responsible.  Again it all relates to fear. 

Goals:  The radical right does not really have an ideological component here with some leftists joining into their cause.  In this case it is all about alleviating the fears of the populace who feel this fear.  Though the only thing that makes it a political rightist radicalism is by it being usually being associated with them.  So they typically choose to alleviate the fears by getting "tough" on immigration and hope enough time passes until the fears and what caused it blow over.

  Conclusion:  Immigration is a complex issue with these fears having to be addressed regularly. They seek a balance between meeting the needs for new people (immigrants) to enter the population that will make our country better and making the newer voter base happy, while satisfying those irrational fears of those already here.  This is not to say that infiltrators cannot get in, but others should not be punished because of that. As such, the right typically sides with those who fear first as a knee jerk reaction and thus why they are usually blamed for being anti-immigrant.