The World We Live In

A little history: when Lenin and his Bolsheviks created a new revolutionary state, Stalin was always helpful, willing to please, until he fully controlled the secret police. Once he controlled it, he was able to control everyone's lives in a way no ruler ever had before, partly because of the huge amount of information he amassed about everyone who mattered. The secret police mission: know what everyone is thinking. Stalin's monopoly of power was unparalleled.

Seeing "Citizen Four" on Snowden's revelations, I was reminded of how Stalin had amassed such power. But here, at least for now, the power is organized at a seemingly lower level: the management. The CIA, the FBI and now the NSA, and of course the militarized police and the DOD are each contributing to the creation of a police state even more effective than Stalin's. It hasn't quite gotten there, yet. More properly, they have not. On the other hand, no President is going to go against them: witness Obama's almost fearful expression as he says Ed Snowden should just turn himself in…he should have followed procedures…he'd get a fair trial….

Wow! I seem to remember a different Obama.

Of course we could only have the same SuperStalin for eight years, and the people would decide who would best represent them--every four, but really eight years: a new form of democracy, or the most oppressive totalitarianism ever yet devised? Technology makes it all so much easier, ultimately, for the few who amass all the wealth. They will 'brainwash' everyone to love them.

They'll control, equally, by what they know about each of you, and what they persuade you to think. That will be through the schools and the media, of course, but carefully modulated to fit all 'tendencies' in the population. So, of course there will be jobs for teachers, journalists, image-makers and attractive faces and voices, as long as they are careful. Yet, technology might make more of you redundant, anyway.

And the intelligence community would know, if even a keystroke--an eye-flick--implied DANGER.

Guantanamo and the gulags' successors will be called supermax correctionals, and life there might even be more hideous than in their predecessors'. Water boarding, pfft!

So, what can we do? On the one side are the terrorists and on the other side are the Government--and all its corporate allies, and the money behind all of them.

And we are between them.

But think about this: terrorism is used to scare most of us enough that we're willing to give up our rights, in order to be protected from them. But Snowden has revealed that the intelligence agencies, government departments and corporations gain tremendous streams of information about all of us. They say they'll only keep the records for five years, but any time your name, number, email, Facebook, etc. comes up relating to anything--a crime, a stirring of dissent, even if the connection is tenuous, then all your communications over the last five years could be mined for the crime, of dissent, at very least.

Stalin made such a spectacle of his show trials!

There are dangers, of course: the new barbarism of the Taliban, Boko Haram and now Islamic State do have appeal to those left out of, or oppressed by, global capitalism and civilization. More on that next time.

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden has done a tremendous service to the American people and to the world. He has not profited from his action to steal and divulge millions of government documents. He did so because it was the Government that was lying and committing the greater crimes of violating almost everyone's privacy. He deserves full amnesty, as do Chelsea Manning and others, for revealing CRIMES our government has committed, supposedly in our name. Proven liars like NSA's Clapper should be tried for perjury.



The New York Times wrote an editorial, of which the above is a brief synopsis. Essentially what they and the Progressive community want is to roll back the surveillance state.



Perhaps it's possible, although surveillance corporations will probably circumvent any government limits, and the technology for surveillance has become so powerful that entities with power will use it.



We are all like insects, under giant microscopes.



The last Roman Emperors probably dreamed they'd be able to do stuff like this, but could hardly keep track of the intrigue at court. They resorted, instead, to burning 'miscreants' alive on lamp-posts.

Now our "democracy" threatens Snowden with life in prison and hell, to begin with, just as they visited on Chelsea Manning--for revealing something most dangerous of all: the truth about Government lies.

Hell, Ed Snowden should get not only Amnesty, but the NObel Peace Prize, for revealing the absurdity of our international war culture and embarrassing the bully on the block, the USA.

Maybe peace and stability are still possible.

What Don't They Understand?

'They' are Obama, Biden and other putative liberals or progressives, who have signed onto--and defend--the massive surveillance of practically everyone, world-wide, including American citizens in the US, that the intelligence complex has foisted on all of us. Obama was a constitutional law professor; he should know about all the guaranteed rights that PRISM and meta-data collection violate. Instead, he pursues Ed Snowden to the ends of the earth.

Apparently, the American public doesn't understand, either.

Of course, there are all sorts of justifications: US citizens aren't targeted--unless they are. We have to sweep up all the world's communications to protect the American people, although we do a terrible job protecting, except for ferreting out the credulous in stings: occasionally there is the miniscule chance that someone will set off a bomb. Many more are killed, routinely, because our gun laws are so lax, because we travel faster on the roads than they're designed for, because we have a healthcare system driven by profit--and a corporate system in which human lives are less important than dividends.

So, to stop the occasional mad man, we give up our rights to privacy; we bow to government and corporate power and don't think about it: it's more important to know what the celebs are doing, or whether your team is winning. It's preferable to spend hundreds of millions on stadiums than to fully fund food stamps, so that people don't go hungry.

What does that have to do with the NSA's surveillance? The Terror Industry is a diversion, of money that could be used to make people's lives better, of attention away from the escalating inequality enabled by that same inattention: if you're terrified of terrorists, you won't think about how your CEO is exploiting you, and your government is watching your every move. You certainly won't rebel against the system, even if you sense it's been shaped to rip you off. The surveillance state tells you: you can't get away with anything, especially protest against your government.

Go scream about abortion, instead; or oral sex. Your surveillers will even support you: social issues are safe; but economic ones are not: taxes must go down--in inverse relation to your income, and regulations must be dismantled, to free private enterprise--so it can exploit everyone more efficiently.

Surveillance and police control, even with tanks, will enable the government--or select corporations--to protect their privileges, against massive unrest. Yes, the US is ready if American dissidents try to bring Tahrir Square to Washington or New York. Police have already crushed Occupy--while the IRS targeted "progressive" groups about as much as the Tea Party.

Democratic hacks seek support from the corporate class, our Roman Senators: Republicans slavishly represent them.

Roman Senators--and the defense-industrial-intelligence-complex--lay the groundwork for a legal coup: NSA's General Keith Alexander for President!

Surveillance Makes Us Safe

Drones, "minimization procedures," "targeting procedures," "metadata" "US persons" "non-US persons…."

It's okay: we're only "targeting" non-US persons abroad; if we've mistakenly targeted a US person and there is indication of a crime, that's also okay. So, surveillance not only stops terrorism in its tracks--NY subway bombing plot, etc.--it also fights crime--at home and abroad.

No wonder, neither Hong Kong, nor Russia are jumping through US police-state hoops! Moscow doesn't "know'" where Edward Snowden is. The crimes the US accuses of Snowden reveal the extent of crimes the US commits against people in Russia--and everywhere else--the "legal" targets are non-US persons on "foreign territory." We accuse Putin's government of authoritarian practices, but we're listening in on all those non-US persons in Russia. So, why should the Russian or Hong-Kong governments cooperate with the US? Why should Ecuador, or Iceland?

Talk about a widening gulf! It's between everyone else vs official Washington, which thinks the surveillance of virtually everyone--except US persons--is easily justified because the US has to stop terrorists. After all, even Brits and Canadians aren't "US-persons."

Even an American resident or citizen can be tracked if there is evidence of a crime. How do the authorities establish evidence of a crime? 'Accidental' surveillance?

There have been at least two high profile politicians/public figures recently, who were caught because of such accidental surveillance: Elliot Spitzer and General Petraeus. The former was caught through a bank alert for suspicious money transfers, and then phone surveillance in 2008, the latter in 2012, when the FBI traced harassing emails from Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell, to a woman she feared was competing with her for Petraeus' affections.

Cases like those may have prepared the American public for Snowden's revelations. They may explain the shrug, accompanied by: "we knew they were doing it all along," reaction of so many--instead of outrage.

Why no outrage? Turks and Brazilians are rioting against their governments because of specific accusations--authoritarianism, or corruption and misplaced priorities--the US has its share of similar abuses and they may actually be worse. The vast extent of American surveillance exceeds anything Russia or China can mount.

Which makes it okay?

The NY Times, the Guardian, et al; were the entities that published the leaks, i.e. made them public--so that even al Qaeda can read them! Why aren't they prosecuted for treason, too?

The real treason--betrayal of American and international civil liberties--is perpetrated by the accusers: the US Government (including Obama), and the Congress and Courts permitting it.

The US, in its decline, has the potential to become more authoritarian than the Roman Empire. Surveillance gives the tools to crush all opposition. Even Stalin's powers were puny compared to these! A President elected with our contemporary Roman Senators' support wouldn't bother to assure us (as Obama has) that he wouldn't use these powers to crush opposition. He/she would use them to maintain control.

Are We Trapped?

Republicans support the wealthy, the CEO's, the corporations; the worker is chopped liver. But Democrats are afraid: of the wealthy, the CEO's and the corporations--and enough are bought off, too.

Our two party system has been described as a duopoly, and when you look at the Obama/McConnell/Reid/Boehner compromise over "the fiscal cliff," you see that it is.

Remaining on the right, are the angry Tea Partiers, who distrust government in all its forms, though they're not unwilling to rip it off. Remaining on the left are forlorn progressives, who yearn for a government they can trust: they see one that's only protecting the "One Percent."

Both fringes attempt to push government more to their liking, but the duopoly has other plans: it's owned by the corporations: the banks, oil companies, media and more.

The anger among Tea Partiers is genuine, but the billionaire lobby, from astro-turf roots to media campaigns, to think tank creations, contrives its targets.

Anger on the left is at least as real, but its targets are scattered. Their anger focuses on exploitation, of, by and for the corporations, but also on government and military-style repression: they have little money behind them.

We don't have a Fourth Amendment any longer: unlawful search and seizure has been pushed aside by Terrorism and Drugs. All a local prosecutor, or enforcement officer, need do is to record everyone within electronic reach. Soon, I predict, all they'll have to do is apply to the NSA, or whatever Federal entity has become the repository, to access phone, email and Internet files on anyone "of interest." That's why everyone's online (and cloud) records are being recorded in the massive surveillance program initiated by the NSA. The justification: to intercept any terrorists before they act.

Stalin gained power by controlling information about everyone; people need to wrest that power back. And this is an issue where both fringes could/should collaborate. Tea Partiers hate the idea of government surveillance as much as lefties.

Unless "the fringes" can come together in resistance, there is no escape. Republicans and Democrats are equally implicated in the Surveillance State. Democratic Senator Feinstein and President Obama are as much a part of it as Bush II, Cheney and Senator McCain. The renewal--and strengthening--of the NDAA in December demonstrates this.

In the Fifth Century Empire, Roman Senators and German generals collaborated in controlling and repressing the humiliores.

With powers of surveillance and manipulation of information greater than Stalin ever dreamed of, the modern American state soon will leave no room for real dissent. That could be its downfall, just like the Stalinist state before it.

Like the USSR's failed New Lands wheat projects, the US plunges into fracking, oil sands and nuclear, while the rest of the world pushes ahead with solar, wind and bio-fuel alternatives.

We'll decline, driven by government-corporate induced blindness. Others will rise--if there is any livable environment left.