I think their function is to keep people believing in a left-wing media, to confuse the masses.

over the last 10K yrs, $zillions were spent on arms and warfare. If that money wld have been used to impart enlightenment/knowledge to kids, we wldn’t be in peril now.

re warming i trust science. It is science which had improved our lives and not at all the patricians.

so, modern patricians have realized how much science can increase their wealth; they took it over and some parts of knowledge like technology almost completely.
by taking over knowledge, i mean to say that ruling class has it and is withholding it from children.
as an aside, if US empire grows poorer or breaks down, the ruling class might come up even stronger and richer.
as another aside, with so much land already obatined and much more to obtain, whites might export black and latino pops to newly ‘discovered’ lands and thus end unsolvable demography. tnx balkas

“We are going to escape, to a large degree, the consequences of climate change. Our children and grandchildren will not.” Goldmark

A big part of the answer is “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”.

So far only talk we haven’t even started yet. Let’s see how Copenhagen goes and more talk and band aids. These next two years will show us more not talk but the power bigger than ourselves we called Earth.

apes have a leaders. A pride of lions have a leader; usually a wise female hunter.
This might explain why even euros, who appear to have not been indocrinated as much as people in US, still support israel, invasions, and occupations; and a stagnant/largely undemocratic governance.
tnx bozhidar balkas

Fox is propaganda but they speak the “working class” language a lot better than the Left and that is why they are popular.

The most likely near future event is conflict between competing empires. The winner gets to be the master of the enslaved global population, as the US elite are the current masters.

There’s been little if any progress on anarchist/democratic fronts. The most sensible anarchist strategy is to operate on two fronts – a global solidarity peoples’ movement and local community solidarity movements.

I look at China, South Korea, and India. I see the same greed, the same material desires, the same capitalist populace that we saw in the US when it was a rising capitalist power. Humanity hasn’t learned anything at all. It’s the same old shit with different faces. Of course they all have their dissidents. And of course they all have no power.

I examine the youth of America. Far from *excited* about the fall of the American Empire (as some of us are), they are deeply disturbed by it. Many of the youth who became fascinated with Japan when it was a “rising power” in the ’80s and ’90s have shifted their interest to China, India, and South Korea. These are capitalists who have given up on the US and are looking west for capitalist guidance and hope.

Another subset of the youth are anarchists, and while no survey can be undertaken I expect the anarchist percentage of youth in the US to be on the rise.

Another subset of the youth have given up on society itself. They turn to addiction in one form or another – TV, video games, parties, anxiety of intimacy, drugs. This is related to a decline in thinking by the youth, as their thoughts are enslaved by their addiction(s). Their inner argument is that in a loveless totalitarian society the self-defined and self-created love of what they are addicted to is the real meaning of life.

I get very depressed about the state of the world, about U.S. imperialism, about income disparities, about racism and the denial of white privilege, about the poisoning of the environment, etc., etc., etc. Before meeting my soon-to-be-wife, the depression was more frequent and more severe…but also more debilitating.

I do now and always have managed to find happiness and live my life (admittedly contributing to what depresses me, which depresses me more).

And I know I’m not alone.

Have you left the U.S.?

If substantial change is going to happen (from the outside), how do you envision it unfolding?

Let’s say you’re a teacher on the Death Star, helping with the “education” of the Death Star minions. Let’s say that you become disgusted with the Empire but you don’t want to join the Rebels for various reasons – the Empire pays better, there’s less chance of being killed or enslaved, etc.

Now you, on the Death Star, are asking me if there are enough reachable people on the Death Star to make a substantive difference. Apparently you believe that who? – the Stormtroopers, the construction workers whose livelihoods and social status are tied to the Empire, the Dissidents are going to rebel?

How much of a dissident can one be to REMAIN on the Death Star, working for and *supporting* the Empire? Even if the entire Death Star was made up of Dissidents these people would not rebel.

What would Luke Skywalker think of a “Death Star dissident” who talks about rebelling with other “Death Star dissidents”? He looks around him and sees Rebels who have put themselves on the line for their cause, worked years upon years to bring down the Empire.

“Why encourage “leftists” to leave the country if you want there to be a revolution?”

It’s a lot easier to revolt if one is not corrupt, and the heart of the empire is the place of greatest corruption.

One can only destroy the Death Star from the outside.

Consider the average joe on the Death Star. Do you really expect him to be honest with himself? Do you expect him to care about the planets the Death Star destroys? Wouldn’t it destroy him to care about that, due to his role in it?

Noone likes to be miserable, depressed, unhappy. Americans are known for their smiles. Why do you suppose they smile?

If we fail to save the world, what is the last vision that we will see? As humanity collapses, and the rich hole up in their fortresses, won’t the last vision be one Final Party, one extravagant overwhelming barrage of “prosperity”? The party will be filled with shiny, happy people, celebrating themselves one final time, celebrating their triumph over the corpses all around them.

In movies apocalypses are shown as causing misery and depression. But for anyone who can climb on top of other humans, regardless of the misery around them, there’s a smile on their face.

A smile in the heart of the empire doesn’t indicate happiness – it indicates a denial of unhappiness.

“if it is in genes, and if genes are stronger than any elucidation, then it might take millennia for the enlightenment or knowledge to erase delusions from our genes.”

I’ve wondered about this myself, and it is frightful. I like to think that greed and hatred are not in our genes, but I’m not sure. Or, if they are, I hope they can be resisted enough so that “we” (i.e., anyone who gives a damn) can bring about peace, justice and equity.

amers are not evil; i.e., fully cognizant that their country, led by about 5% of its pop, is commiting crimes.

peoples are never this or that; a people becomes or is becoming! causes for that are, in my view, massive miseducation, disinformation; people’s deep need to trust leadership and taught belief that rich know better and thus have absolute right to govern as they see fit.
peoples worldover have been taught for millennia that priests, kings, nobles know best and that therefore only they shld rule or guide the flock.
have these misteachings- because this miseduction is milennia-old- gone genetic?
if it is in genes, and if genes are stronger than any elucidation, then it might take millennia for the enlightenment or knowledge to erase delusions from our genes.
it is a frightful thought.
if this analyses are true, enlightenment wld be rigourously persecuted and prosecuted.
tnx bozhidar balkas

I have a really hard time believing this. I’m not even sure the average joe knows what totalitarian means, or that the bulk of mainstream media is owned and operated by a handful of corporations. My dad, unless he’s covering up his true feelings, seems convinced that the U.S. is benevolent and by far the greatest nation on Earth. It isn’t that he thinks the damage we cause is “worth it”–rather, he denies that we cause damage. I believe there are tens of millions who feel that same way. And even if they’re intentionally fooling themselves, it doesn’t really matter if they refuse to accept new points of view–if they can’t be reached, what good are they? Are there enough reachable people to make a substantive difference? I hope so.

Why encourage “leftists” to leave the country if you want there to be a revolution?

Speaking of leaving the country, that also requires control of capital…it’s not easy or inexpensive to move to another country (where you don’t know the culture or language, where you don’t have a job or place to live, etc.).

Everyone is selective both in terms of their consciousness and in the data they apply to their life. If one wasn’t selective one would be powerless. “Twisting numbers” is a matter of honesty and it’s quite possible (and imperative for a serious person) to never twist numbers.

This selectivity is partly a matter of ideology – leftists for example tend to know a lot of data regarding leftist issues – the number of people who die from poverty, the number imprisoned, and the like.

“Needless to say, there are/were educated people and uneducated people. In the 60s/70s, as well as now. But I think it’s possible that the massive increase in media (cable, video games, etc.) has helped dumb down America…or maybe that’s a myth. I’m not sure. If surveys show that more Americans know more about American Idol than they do about politics, what does that say?”

In terms of the *details*, I completely agree with you. Americans are largely ignorant of political *details*. People don’t know the vast array of details that Chomsky knows, for example. That’s one difference between an academic/intellectual and a regular joe. In the ‘60/’70s, Americans were more aware of political details, since they were politically engaged and relatively empowered. For example, the Employee Free Choice Act would have been much more a part of populist consciousness in the late ’60s than it is today.

What Americans have become even more educated in, far more so than in the ’60s, is in the big picture. The average joe understands at a deep level that America is a totalitarian society (it’s only academics who are debating it), which was not at all true in the ’60s, when Americans were outraged by the mere possibility of such. The average joe understands that corporate media is propaganda. They understand that politicians constantly engage in propaganda. They understand that America causes great damage in the world. Unless they are leftists however, they believe this damage to be “worth it”, which is why (besides racism) they aren’t too fazed by the common knowledge that Iraq has suffered massively due to the American occupation.

“but his world views are – in my opinion – terribly inaccurate.”

Is your wife accurate? Can ideology be defined as “inaccurate”? Isn’t selecting ideology much like selecting a wife? Don’t we court ideologies when we are young and then “get married” to one?

Most Americans in the 1950s were racist. Most Americans today are not (excuse the binary yes/no distinction). Does any of that have to do with “accuracy”? Is it “accurate” to say that humans should not starve to death?

“How is what you’re doing different than what Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn are doing?”

The academic left in general believes that they have an *informative* function regarding the general public. They believe that their role is to present the truth, and the rest will take care of itself.

This is changing, however, and (among your list) especially Chomsky seems to understand that the far more important role of the academic left is to become a power source of it’s own, and allow through it’s own power to gain the allegiance of the populace.

I don’t consider myself to serve an informative role (regarding the general public anyway, I’m happy to inform academics), and I’ve argued with self-styled educators on this point who consider their ONLY role to be informative. My role is to move the general populace generically speaking “to the left”, more accurately speaking to the place where I believe they want themselves to be. To subvert them, to cause them to take up the revolutionary mantle that they, in their hearts, want to take up but lack the power and bravery to do so *without* a power source to back them up.

The argument these followers of “information” make is that the embrace of power ultimately leads to self-destruction (kind of like “turning to the dark side” in Star Wars). This argument goes hand-in-hand with pacifism. So they reject POWER and therefore have none, and the hierarchical capitalist structure has no viable enemy as a result and rampages unchecked over the world.

My dad believed what he believes long before there was a Fox News and long before there was an Air America (the latter is merely a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party). How did he come to those beliefs? Family members, friends, co-workers, religion, books, articles, media, etc. The same is true for everyone, I suppose. We’ve had numerous exchanges over the years that lead me to believe that he believes his beliefs are rational and based on reality. Of course, I’m not inside of his head. As for empirical data, like any good conservative Republican, he either ignores numbers/data/science or he twists numbers to suit his beliefs (maybe we all do that at some point in our lives).

Needless to say, there are/were educated people and uneducated people. In the 60s/70s, as well as now. But I think it’s possible that the massive increase in media (cable, video games, etc.) has helped dumb down America…or maybe that’s a myth. I’m not sure. If surveys show that more Americans know more about American Idol than they do about politics, what does that say? Maybe nothing. I don’t know. Generalizations should be avoided, though, so I should say that I see evidence of educated people and evidence of uneducated people. Of course, this gets even more nuanced when you try to define “educated.” My dad has a college degree and many decades of life experience, but his world views are – in my opinion – terribly inaccurate.

Try to bring about change in the U.S. or just leave the U.S.? That’s a question I’ve considered, and perhaps someday my wife and I will decide to leave. If we do, where will we go that is not imperialistic *and* to our liking? Not sure.

How is what you’re doing different than what Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn are doing?

it seems that some people know how effective a lie is in obtaiing what they want.
if i had lied about; let’s say, about iraq as some 100mn amers have lied about it, i am doubtful that i’d ever sleep nights or mix with people.
i’d probably commit suicide or get lost s’mwhere.

it seems that some people can lie and then cover the lies with more lies and throw in a truth here and there and are not disturbed by it or even exult while lying.
how did the become that way? Is the genetic pool to blame for producing psychopaths? or is it combination of the pool, miseducation, disinformation, etc.

what we know for certain is that the nature, of which we are part, is infinitely valued. Btwn its goodness and badness there are great number of values
so, all this may be the will of the nature? If so, woe to us nonpsychos. bozhidar balkas tnx

Let’s take an example to help clarify – Jews in Dachau (a Nazi concentration camp). Let’s briefly compare this Jew in Dachau to your dad. How do we go about analyzing the MEANING of what this Jew states are his beliefs? Let’s say this Jew states similar beliefs to his Nazi captors. Are we to believe his views are “free” – freely created through his own free will, or are we to believe that he believes that by attempting to manipulate himself into believing such, that he will render himself less threatening to his Nazi captors and thus increase his own chance of survival?

And assuming this to be the case, what does this Jew believe about this own process of self-manipulation? Does he see it clearly for what it is, or does he self-delude into a position of “I really believe it! I freely believe it!”

We live in a totalitarian social reality in the US. So what does it MEAN for your dad to hold the beliefs he does? How did he beliefs come to be his beliefs?

Let’s examine that same Dachau Jew. He lives through the WWII Jewish Holocaust, marries, has children. He’s learned that self-manipulation and self-delusion are the path to the continuation of life, and those are the lessons he imparts (largely subconsciously) to his children. So what happens to the beliefs of his children? Are they “freely constituted”, or rather are they the absolute product of historical and contextual circumstance?

So your dad “believes” Fox News. He believes that “believing SUCH” is the wise thing to believe, rather than his belief being based on empirical rational reality.

A lot of people choose to believe something basely largely on their judgment that it’s the *winner* saying it. So maybe your dad merely thinks of Fox News as the *winner* (whose views will be in power and dominant) and Air America as the *loser* (whose views will be put into submission, perhaps eventually exterminated).

To see a metaphor for this, examine sports apparel, and notice that if that team is successful there is a much higher frequency of the wearing of their apparel by the populace. Yankees caps for example are ridiculously frequent, even outside of America, and not coincidentally the Yankees have been perhaps (there are various ways to define it) the winningest baseball team over the past two decades. When your father talks to you he’s “wearing” his beliefs.

You know your dad much better than I do and can make a judgment – but the judgment that he “believes freely” in what he does is naive.

So while your dad, on an empirical rational judgment, knows that Fox News is propaganda, on a POWER judgment he knows it to be the truth, in the same sense that the bible is the truth, because the bible is powerful and just, not because the bible is empirically accurate.

If you’ve been conversing with your dad and have never heard him state that Fox News is propaganda, the most likely reason is that he believes it will harm him to make a rational judgment which contradicts his power judgment, not that he’s not *capable* of making a rational judgment. If you’d like to test his ability at rationality lay out a rational argument and see his response.

If Fox News were to be destroyed, many citizens would be freed of it’s propaganda, not merely directly but by way of the lessening of power of that type of propaganda.

It’s not propaganda itself that has any power, and propaganda is never truly deceptive. It’s *power* that influences people – the more powerful a source the more powerful it’s propaganda. The only power component of propaganda is in how effective it is (how efficient it is) in it’s functionality as a *directive mechanism* – how effectively it moves the slaves in the direction the propagandist wants them to go.

A homeless man on the street can be brilliant and he’ll be dismissed (by the people themselves, not just the elite) because he lacks power, while George Bush can be an utter idiot (act as if he’s an utter idiot) and he’ll only be dismissed when other elite turn against him.

Everyone, even the intellectuals, hang on the every word of Barack Obama, because of his power. This power isn’t based on personal merit, but on a combination of personal elements and obedience to the power center.

“I have a hard time calling Americans fairly well-educated. Whether it’s the teenagers I work with or the adults I enounter, I am not seeing much evidence that the U.S. population is well-educated.”

The amount of evidence you see is directly related to the balance of power. “No evidence” occurs in totalitarian societies.

There’s an easy way to see this. Examine the period of social unrest in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States. If you worked with teenagers and adults during this period, you would have “seen much evidence” that they were well educated. Yet rationally, it makes no sense to say that Americans were poorly educated in the 1950s/1980s but well educated in the 1960s/1970s. So what’s going on?

You have no access to the education that people HAVE, merely the education they allow you to see. In the 1960s and 1970s, people in the United States felt more powerful, more free, more revolutionary, and therefore had the impetus to express their knowledge.

Before and after, the people felt powerless, like slaves in a totalitarian nightmare. There’s no *point* to them expressing their knowledge in such situations, which therefore leads certain high-minded academics to declare them “uneducated”. Yet suddenly, VOILA, if the people again gain a measure of power, they will appear to be educated.

I’m able to get people to express their education at times due to being a revolutionary.

“Aside from writing, what actions are you taking? Do you successfully avoid all sweatshop goods, successfully avoid contributing to corporations, grow your own food, eat a vegan diet, buy fair trade clothing, walk or bike everywhere you go, etc.? If you are, in fact doing all of those things, what do you say to those who tell you they simply cannot afford to do most of those things?”

That’s the ironic problem – most “good ways” of living (in the US) require greater control of capital (better relationship with the power center) to execute.

The only thing on your list I do is eat a vegan diet. I do do related helpful things like buying a minimum of clothing, driving little, etc. but through a combination of lack of access to capital and lack of ability and willingness to spend the time maximizing my morality I’m far from maximized in that respect.

Also, I notice that “leaving the United States” is not on your list – yet that’s probably the most helpful thing one can do for the environment.

I’ve lived most of my life under the common intellectual conceit that through “thought itself” I could save the world.

I consider one of my jobs to encourage humans toward morality – I don’t expect moral perfection.

“I feel somewhat overwhelmed and unsure what exactly I could and should be doing to subvert the empire. I need specifics.”

Forming a union at your workplace is helpful. Before you do that you should research the issue. Since you’re a teacher you may already be unionized, in which case participate therein.

Forming a civic group which then acts as a voting block will lead to influence with local politicians.

The difficulty here is that the most helpful actions are also the ones which lead the elite to remove one from society. So all “helpful actions” are of limited consequence, but the process of unionization and civic group forming is still useful and helpful.

If one is not concerned about remaining in society, then I recommend assassinating members of the high elite. Just bear in mind that most of the left claims to be pacifist and therefore won’t make you a martyr. You can only be a martyr by dying needlessly and pathetically bravely, like Rachel Corrie.

“Define for me “effective participation.” I really want to know what I and other moderately immoral people can be doing, and “effective participation” is too non-specific.”

Once you’re in a democratic group, maximize the power of your actions in terms of benefiting the group.

For more information, you could talk to one of these democratic groups rather than talk to me, who would like to join one of these groups but knows of none in my locality.

In my case, since I know of none and am of limited ambition in this regard I started a book club. *Any* local organization can evolve into a political entity.

Removing yourself from the power center and involving yourself in your locality is good, even if you are not directly doing anything political. This means turning off corporate TV, getting independent news, participating in local civic activities and clubs, minimizing your engagement with corporations, etc.

I guess that depends on how you define propaganda, but I can tell you that my dad (and I know he’s not alone) does not consider FOX/Limbaugh/CBN to be propaganda. He believes wholeheartedly that they are speaking the truth, that they are patriotic, etc. And I know there are folks who believe Barack Obama, Ed Shultz (sp?), Air America and the Democratic Party are speaking the truth, independent of corporate influence, etc. (hell, I used to fit that description…my thinking has changed dramatically in recent years).

About a year ago, I got into a brief discussion with students of mine about the occupation of Iraq. Nearly every single student believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Nationwide polls showed that large percentages of the population believed the same thing. The propaganda works, and I don’t think it’s because people want to believe nonsense or look foolish. That said, I do think there are those who purposefully stick their heads in the sand to avoid feelings of guilt, responsibility, etc. Generally speaking, though, I think you’re giving U.S. Americans too much credit.

While very few people, if any, are doing as much as they can to save the world, many people *are* acting on their beliefs. Volunteering, donating, boycotting certain products, writing, raising awareness, etc.

“What I’m doing now (on Dissident Voice) is very similar to what I’ve done in the past to subvert Americans. It’s a combination of education and discipline training. Americans are fairly well educated nowadays, other than their ridiculous libertarian right leanings, but their discipline is atrocious.”

Aside from writing, what actions are you taking? Do you successfully avoid all sweatshop goods, successfully avoid contributing to corporations, grow your own food, eat a vegan diet, buy fair trade clothing, walk or bike everywhere you go, etc.? If you are, in fact doing all of those things, what do you say to those who tell you they simply cannot afford to do most of those things?

I have a hard time calling Americans fairly well-educated. Whether it’s the teenagers I work with or the adults I enounter, I am not seeing much evidence that the U.S. population is well-educated.

“If you have a passion for subversion you’ll find a way. If you haven’t found a way yet in your life the most likely cause is a lack of passion. In a group sense, increasing the power of local democratic groups (anarchist groups, workers’ groups, local community groups) by means of effective participation in them is perhaps the most pragmatic strategy in the war against the elite.”

People can be exposed to new ideas and develop new passions at any point in their lives. I’m 31 years old, and for much of my life there was a lack of awareness (partly due to my upbringing and partly due to my greater interest in typical kid stuff like playing baseball with friends). Lack of awareness regarding the corporate stranglehold on Washington, the duopoly/plutocracy, white male privilege, the impacts of free trade, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, etc., etc., etc. I was aware of inequality, racism, sexism, pollution, etc. And as I said before, there are actions I’m taking and have been taking (volunteering, donating, having the occasional discussion with my students about some of these issues, using eco-friendly products, etc.). But I’m fully aware of my shortcomings (I do buy products that I’m sure were made with slave labor, for instance). I feel somewhat overwhelmed and unsure what exactly I could and should be doing to subvert the empire. I need specifics.

Define for me “effective participation.” I really want to know what I and other moderately immoral people can be doing, and “effective participation” is too non-specific.

“as far as i can make out, the assertion stays until a number of schollars show or prove that the vast number of amers; let’s say, 200mn, are onto most or all lies perped by the clero-political-educational class of life.
there are, however, serbs, germans, italians, japanese peoples who not only show but may prove [i want science to get into this] that 95% of these peoples have believed or evaluated as factual what the leadership in their respective countries was saying.”

They obey the elite – there’s no need for them to evaluate whether or not the elite happen to be telling the truth on a given issue, since they obey regardless. They don’t try to be “onto” things. Propaganda is so transparent that most people can easily discuss things intelligently – their obedience to the elite however prevents them from acting on their own intelligence and good judgment.

So when I discuss the latest elite lie, people are not shocked and outraged at my assertion. They nod their head, or shrug their shoulders. They know, but they don’t care to do anything about it. It’s the same thing as not liking what the boss says, but following orders nonetheless. The typical American phrase for this is “I’m just doing my job”. The alternative of course is the dreaded “Being fired”.

Propaganda is a *directive* mechanism – a set of instructions for content of thought and behavior. It’s truth or falsity isn’t relevant. So there’s nothing to be “onto”.

All elite communication is propaganda, even what they say that is 100% true. Propaganda is communication that is self-serving and “power-seeking”. Do you think the elite ever operate in some other fashion?

Master commands. Slave obeys. It’s that simple. Truth and falsity are irrelevant to the issue. America is such a tremendously obedient society filled with such deep slaves that master can use various types of propaganda, some quite subtle, to get an effective message across. The propaganda is so effective that “educated” Americans only define *false* propaganda as propaganda.

In reply to Garrett:

“In relation to the global average, anyone who can even contemplate going to college in the U.S. is rich. But speaking as someone who went to college and then grad school to become a teacher, my goal was not and is not to become rich. And I most certainly desire “truths which help poor people.” In relation to the global average, I was born wealthy. I was born white, solidly middle class, male and heterosexual in the suburbs of St. Louis, MO. To ultra-conservative, Christian parents. I’ve made the transition from buying into some of what my dad believes to being a Democratic Party believer to being fully anti-empire, anti-religion, anti-political party, etc. And reading some Chomsky (amongst other things, such as articles on this site) helped get me to this point.”

Most Americans believe that what they *believe* matters, instead of what they do. A belief is not an accomplishment – it merely allows the possibility of one.

Americans like “good beliefs” so much because they allow their morality to stay locked up in their heads while their actions remain pleasantly immoral.

Immorality has tremendous benefits. Wealth accumulation gets someone an attractive spouse (or a selection of playmates). Domination gains control over other humans, forcing them to do one’s will. Playing by the rules (being immoral) gets one wealth, social status, material goods, the works. Most “good” Americans define wealth accumulation as good.

Look at Brad Will. From what I’ve seen, one of the most moral people in America. It didn’t take him long to become a corpse. Or Rachel Corrie, seemingly a very good-hearted person. Her heart’s biological function didn’t last long.

Being moral is a serious commitment, and an often deadly one. Everyone who is not quickly eliminated from society by the elite (either jailed, tortured, or killed) is compromised in some fashion. Everyone who is free is corrupt. We should recognize the reality and go from there. If the role of the moral among us is to be eliminated from society, the role of the corrupt is to save the world. Or not save the world. That’s the choice.

The typical “good” American moderates his immorality. Sure, he buys sweatshop goods. Sure, he gets a paycheck from a corporation tied to Wall Street corruption. But he doesn’t “hurt” anyone. These moderately immoral among us have bought their conscience with that moderation – surely a good bargain. Then they form a community where they pat each other on the back for their beliefs – because you know they need consolation due to living with such bad people.

Rather than be “good” people – moderately immoral people – we need to ask ourselves if we are contributing as much as we can to saving the world. If we’re not willing to at least do that then we need to recognize the effects of the destruction of the world, and our own role therein.

“Also, what are you doing to subvert the empire?”

What I’m doing now (on Dissident Voice) is very similar to what I’ve done in the past to subvert Americans. It’s a combination of education and discipline training. Americans are fairly well educated nowadays, other than their ridiculous libertarian right leanings, but their discipline is atrocious.

“*But* how do I go about “subverting the empire from within?” I hunger for an answer to that question. I hope fighting isn’t hopeless, but who do we fight and HOW do we fight them?”

If you have a passion for subversion you’ll find a way. If you haven’t found a way yet in your life the most likely cause is a lack of passion. In a group sense, increasing the power of local democratic groups (anarchist groups, workers’ groups, local community groups) by means of effective participation in them is perhaps the most pragmatic strategy in the war against the elite.

“And I still think there are people who genuinely buy propaganda such as, “we have to fight the ‘enemy’ over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” I also think flat-out ignorance is a mammoth problem (ignorance of ‘covert’ U.S. terrorism in Latin America and elsewhere, ignorance of Christianity, etc.).”

Their ignorance is a problem for *you*, not for them. They want to be ignorant, so that they can more easily blame others for their problems and so that they don’t have to feel anguish at who they are. People aren’t tricked into watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh – they know it’s propaganda and they are simply choosing who to obey – choosing Fox News OVER Air America.

Likewise – noone buys propaganda, just like noone buys what the boss tells them to do. They do what the boss tells them to do because the alternative is worse, according to their values. The boss can fire them – the power center can imprison or kill them or fire them. So they obey.

If one is going to do what the boss tells them to do, regardless, then it DOESN’T MATTER whether or not the boss is lying. It simply doesn’t matter whether or not the propaganda is “bought”.

People accept government propaganda not because that propaganda is cunningly effective, but because they don’t care whether or not it’s true – master orders and they obey.

Worker – “I’m just doing my job”

Citizen – “I’m just following my elected leader”

In “doing my job” – what is the importance of truth and justice? Is truth and justice worth being fired for? As long as the answer is “no” there is slavery.

Examples abound – there was a recent piece on The Real News where mortgage brokers talked about the corrupt and horrible practices at banks, linked to Wall Street. But they followed orders, “did their job”, in order to not be fired.

That’s what it comes down to in America. These people just “doing their job” are the “good Americans” – but without them there *is no* American Empire.

In refusing to be fired, they accept master’s orders, and are complicit in all results of those orders.