Jim Grisanzio

I’ve worked for people on the left and the right at various points, but for my own sanity I dumped both sides long ago. There’s simply nothing either of them can say to get me to listen. I’m free. However, although people not associated with the left/right paradigm are actually approaching the majority, they are not unified or organized. Thus, all the power rests with the center-left and the center-right — that thin slice in the middle that controls both sides while providing the illusion of difference. So, step outside. Keep building among independents. The old guys inside can’t be reformed. They need to be replaced.

Every American president has his preferred method of killing — all packaged nicely in piles of propaganda, of course. Obama loves his drones. They make for clean, modern, high tech kills and enable him to easily duck responsibility. Brave. The Bush family, on the other hand, used a much more direct approach by sending in many tens of thousands of men and machines to do their killing for them. Proud. Clinton used a combination of bombing and long term sanctions to kill and he promised everyone he felt their pain in the process. Slick. You can just pick your favorite president. Nixon? Kennedy? Johnson? Truman? Etc. All brutal sociopaths. Certainly the least among us in every way imaginable. I wonder what Romney and the new class of killers after him will bring to this sickening table? Surely more death and destruction. They are capable of little else. Kill, baby, kill! That’s the cultural context of the American political establishment today and has been so for a very long time. Naturally, the killers depend on our not seeing this. Our response? Consent.

This image represents the sum total of innovative content the Democrats and Republicans will shove down the throats of Americans during the 2012 presidential election — one hundred percent distraction. Propaganda, basically. And how will 130,000,000 voters react? Oh, they’ll love it. It’s sport to Americans who still believe they have a role in this game. But what’s sad is that people will passionately and tirelessly attach each other in the process of picking someone to dominate them.

The NDAA went into effect the other day in the United States. Americans can now be “disappeared” with no due process. All in secret. All via a decision by one man. How’s all that “Hope” and “Change” working out?

Strong leaders and effective organizations derive their power largely from being highly focused. They narrow and concentrate their efforts. But they also depend on their enemies being completely atomized. So, instead, focus to create power. Fight back. See Gene Sharp and Ralph Nader.

Be afraid, Americans, be very afraid. It’s all about fear. We are on our own.

Can’t help but think that bad stuff is going on out there …

Some reporters are perfectly transparent …

Fascinating that Ron Paul is considered “dangerous” out there. Dangerous to who?

Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins, Matt Taibbi. This piece is not only about Iowa. It’s about the entire American election, which runs on cash and access and not on ideas or any well defined processes of the Republic. It’s really an excellent article. But for even more documentation that Taibbi is correct, see The Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Politics from Tom Ferguson at the University of Massachusetts. Politicians are skilled rhetoricians and their propaganda resonates pretty well among the general population, but all their messaging and hand-shaking in the world only counts for a paper thin veneer of a meta marketing campaign. It’s the spin. The suggestion that you count. That you matter. Well, you don’t. The only people who count in this process are the people who can afford to simply buy the politicians outright and have them implement policies that rarely support your interests. There are (a few) exceptions, of course, but the rule is clear. If you think otherwise, read Taibbi’s articles and watch Ferguson’s film. The entrenchment is nearly complete.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

We ask our soldiers to fight on our behalf. They risk their lives. They get hurt. They die. And when the survivors return home? Well, for far too many of them there is no home. Puts patriotism in perspective.

“Another lie that the American people believe is that presidential elections bring about regime change. This is sheer nonsense. The Obama state is the Bush state. The Bush state was the Clinton state. The Clinton state was the Bush state. The Bush state was the Reagan state. We can trace back and back in time and see the overlapping appointments, bureaucrats, technicians, diplomats, Fed officials, financial elites, and so forth. Rotation in office occurs not because of elections but because of mortality.” Lew Rockwell, The Fascist American State. Rockwell is certainly correct about the changes that simply do not occur between presidents. The other parts of his talk about the American slide into Fascism resonate clearly as well. It’s a disturbing speech but one I find painfully difficult to argue with. But at least it’s a good thing people are paying attention, right? Right.

It’s always amazing when American politicians — in a desperate effort to sell their endless wars — preach that we should support the troops when they do exactly the opposite. The people support the troops. Always have. The politicians don’t. We’re not fooled. See Gary Null: U.S. Government to Gulf War Vets: Drop Dead!

Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, does a bit of analysis of President Obama: What Happened to Obama? Good column. Worth a read.

Westen outlines the failure of Obama to express any reasonable narrative from the moment he took office, whereas the president seemed pretty articulate during the campaign as a candidate, right? Hope. Change. Community. Grassroots. Rebuilding. Civil Rights. Granted, it was all bullshit, but that’s not important. The important thing is that it all basically hung together at least enough to sell millions of people to vote for him over the other guy. That’s my view, anyway, but back to Westen, who argues that Obama should have used that momentum from the campaign to then go after the people who caused the problems in the first place, like Roosevelt did, instead of putting the bad guys even more in charge of the economy. But here I think Obama’s actions are easily understood: Wall Street put Obama into office (#1 source of funding) so Obama’s putting them in charge makes perfect sense politically. You reward the source of your cash or that source dries up. Next Obama may have become too centrist, Westen says, or another possibility is that Obama is just not up for the job and his supporters simply missed his lack of experience. I think that last point is obvious (and Hillary was absolutely correct on the point as well).

Although I don’t agree with some of Westen’s comments on why Obama went wrong, I do agree entirely about why Obama’s rhetoric fails. Westen: “When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. Whether that reflects his aversion to conflict, an aversion to conflict with potential campaign donors that today cripples both parties’ ability to govern and threatens our democracy, or both, is unclear.”

Jackpot. Imagine Alinksy missing this point? Never! Imagine Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, or Clinton with no villains? Can’t do it. They all had and used villains to a great degree throughout their stories. Heck, all those guys were villains themselves so they certainly understood the rhetorical value of demonetization. It’s used to focus attention on your point and to distract attention from your opponent’s point. Or, to cite some positive examples, consider King and Gandhi. When you read those guys you know quite clearly who’s good and who’s bad. So, how could Obama possibly have no clear, strong, personal villains grounding his rhetoric?

Here’s an excellent talk from Bobby Kennedy Jr at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. He really goes after coal primarily but also nuclear and oil as well. These are extremely expensive, inefficient, and dirty technologies. And they are heavily subsidized and far too dumb from a technological and social perspective to meet the needs of the human population in the future. Our health and survival depends of power technologies being sustainable and Kennedy cites the smart alternatives emerging in the marketplace. He’s a bit of an Obama partisan for my taste but you have to consider his political roots. However, given the content he’s pitching — which is solid — it’s clear he’s already way beyond the intellectual capability of most American politicians. So, in that sense his partisanship, although bothersome, is largely meaningless. It’s also quite a kick watching him so effortlessly gut the propaganda of the industry, which, unfortunately pervades the mainstream media in the United States. It’s a talk well worth a listen. Or two.