Category: Ideology

VIDEO: Chris Hedges on the Big Lie of Neoliberalism and the Very Real Threat of a President Trump

Chris Hedges doesn’t spare Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders in this wide-ranging take on the big swindle of neoliberalism and his warning for the future in the hands of a “rapacious oligarchic elite.”

Hedges made his statements during a speech he gave in Toronto on Sept. 3, drawing from his newest book, “Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt,” as well as from his Aug. 30 Truthdig column, “The Great Unraveling.”

Some particularly good lines from Hedges’ speech include these well-taken points: “Every promise made by the proponents of neoliberalism is a lie,” “The left is still alive … barely,”  and “Democracy, especially in the U.S., is a farce, vomiting up right-wing demagogues such as Donald Trump, who has a serious chance to become the Republican presidential nominee—and perhaps even president.”

Find out how Hedges views our country’s current predicament, as well as Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, in the video below (via YouTube):

Right-wing extremism is emerging as an equal, if not greater, threat than Muslim radicalisation.

Right-wing numbers are staggering says Dr Anne Aly.

Far-right threat equal to terror

Tens of thousands march for Spanish anti-austerity Podemos party Updated Sun at 1:58am: Abbott can’t see there is a change coming and it appears to be a Tsunami

Spain anti-austerity march

Tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets in Madrid in support of new anti-austerity party Podemos, a week after Greece elected its hard-left ally Syriza.

The protesters chanted “Yes we can” as they made their way from Madrid city hall to the central Puerta del Sol square.

The party and its anti-austerity message have been surging in polls ahead of elections later this year.

“There are many people that agree with the need for change. Enough already with stealing – that the corrupt take everything and we can’t do anything,” said Dori Sanchez, a 23-year-old unemployed teacher who came from Manovar in south-eastern Spain for the rally.

Podemos said 260 buses brought supporters to the capital from across Spain for the rally referred to as the March for Change, with hundreds of locals signed on to host travellers.

Demonstrators carried banners that read “Universal Basic Income”, “Tick, tock it’s time for change” and “Together we can”.

Syriza beat mainstream Greek parties by pledging to end austerity, as Podemos aims to do in Spain’s general election due in November.

Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias, a 36-year-old former university professor, appeared alongside Syriza’s Alexis Tsipras, now Greece’s prime minister, to publicly support him during his campaign.

Podemos was formed a year ago but has surged in opinion polls with promises to fight what Iglesias called the traditional “caste” of political leaders.

Like Syriza, Podemos found popular support by targeting corruption and rejecting austerity programs aimed at lifting the countries out of deep economic crisis.

It wants to prevent profitable companies from firing people, abolish private hospitals to return to a fully state-controlled health care system and enact a “significant” minimum wage hike.

The party struck a chord with Spaniards enraged by a string of corruption scandals, as well as public spending cuts imposed by the conservative ruling party and previously by the Socialists after the economic crisis erupted in 2008.

Spain has now officially exited recession – the country’s economy grew by 1.4 per cent last year according to provisional data released Friday – but nearly one in four workers are still unemployed.

Salaries for many people have dropped and the number of workers on low-paid short-term contracts soared.

Party born out of protest movement

Podemos was born out of the Indignant protest movement which occupied squares across Spain in 2011 demanding political change at the height of Spain’s economic crisis.

While the street protest movement has died down since 2013, some of the Indignant leaders formed Podemos in January 2014.

Four months later, the party won five seats in the European parliament, with more than 1.2 million Spaniards voting for it.

Podemos has overtaken the mainstream opposition Socialist Party in several opinion polls, and in some has topped the list ahead of the conservative ruling People’s Party (PP).

The Socialists and the PP have ruled Spain alternately since the country returned to democracy after the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in 1975.

Prime minister Mariano Rajoy has warned Spaniards not to “play Russian roulette” by supporting Podemos, which he said “promises the moon and the sun” but will not deliver.

Critics of Podemos have accused it of having links to Venezuela’s left-wing leaders and alleged fiscal irregularities by some of its top members.

The party’s leaders have promised to publish their tax returns to dispel the allegations.

AFP

Without Fox News, There Would Have Been No Iraq War

Max Ehrenfreund points to an interesting tidbit this morning. A pair of researchers have released a working paper that attempts to figure out if watching Fox News makes you more conservative. They do this by exploiting the fact that channel numbers on cable systems are placed fairly randomly throughout the country, and people tend to watch channels with lower numbers. Thus, in areas where Fox has a low channel number, it gets watched a little bit more in a way that has nothing to do with whether the local viewers were more conservative in the first place.

So does randomly surfing over to Fox News tend to make you more right-wing? Yes indeed! “We estimate that Fox News increases the likelihood of voting Republican by 0.9 points among viewers induced into watching four additional minutes per week by differential channel positions.” And this in turn means that we owe the Iraq War to Fox News: “We estimate that removing Fox News from cable television during the 2000 election cycle would have reduced the average county’s Republican vote share by 1.6 percentage points.”

And what about MSNBC? It had no effect until the 2008 election, after it had made the switch to liberal prime-time programming. At that point, it becomes pretty similar to Fox in the opposite direction. But the effect is subtly different:

The largest elasticity magnitudes are on individuals from the opposite ideology of the channel, with Fox generally better at influencing Democrats than MSNBC is at influencing Republicans. This last feature is consistent with the regression result that the IV effect of Fox is greater than the corresponding effect for MSNBC.

….Table 16 shows the estimated persuasion rates of the channels at converting votes from one party to the other. The numerator here is the number of, for example, Fox News viewers who are initially Democrats but by the end of an election cycle change to supporting the Republican party. The denominator is the number of Fox News viewers who are initially Democrats. Again, Fox is more effective at converting viewers than is MSNBC.

The difference in persuasion rates is significant: the study finds that in the 2008 election, a full 50 percent of Fox’s left-of-center viewers switched to supporting Republicans. For MSNBC, the number of switchers was only 30 percent. That’s a big difference.

Now, in real-world terms this is still a smallish effect since neither channel has a lot of regular viewers from the opposite ends of their ideological spectrums in the first place. Still, this is interesting. I’ve always believed that conservatives in general, and Fox in particular, are better persuaders than liberals, and this study seems to confirm that. But why? Is Fox’s conservatism simply more consistent throughout the day, thus making it more effective? Is there something about the particular way Fox pushes hot buttons that makes it more effective at persuading folks near the center? Or is Fox just average, and MSNBC is unusually poor at persuading people? I can easily believe, for example, that Rachel Maddow’s snark-based approach persuades very few conservative leaners to switch sides.

Anyway, fascinating stuff, even if none of it comes as a big surprise. Fox really has had a big effect on Republican fortunes over the past two decades.

What Does It Mean to Be Anti-Police? Apparently, to criticize the police is to be anti-police. But if I call and point out that the swings in the playground are broken, am I anti-parks?

 

Riot police and protester

 

What Does It Mean to Be Anti-Police? | The Nation.

America is a lie: Alleged classlessness in a class society

America is a lie: Alleged classlessness in a class society. American society classless

It was Marx who called the world’s attention to ideology, which is a mask and cloak for concealing class antagonisms. The ancient Egyptians, whose ideology appears to have been glorifying their ruler, built stupid pyramids to exult but one man, the pharaoh, who took it easy in the shade with his harem while the common Egyptians slaved away  building the royal tomb. It did not benefit the common Egyptian to grind out a monument and labor at grinding backbreaking toil for another man. Leaders of various lands claimed descent from the gods, and if you fell for that old one–including the divine right of kings monstrosity–then perhaps there is no hope for the human race. The Aztecs feverishly tore the heart out of their human sacrifices on the temple, and then perhaps for several hours they were convinced that the sun would rise again in the east. But still they ran off and made war for captives for the offerings of their barbarism. If you were a doomed offering of the Aztecs, that was just too bad; there was noone there to rescue you, some things just have to be. Noone can rationally explain the Aztec need for Opfer. Life is full of tragedy and injustice.

The Reformation gave rise to the Counter-reformation that induced the Inquisition. But why go on in this way? History is nothing but the forcible suppression of the hopes and dreams and desires of the poor by the powerful. Thankfully the religio-imbecility Christianity, but one form of social warfare, is dead. Deus est in pectore nostro, wrote Ovid. Ideology is now usually based on economic productivity.

 

The American lie is classlessness in the reality of a class society. The American ideology is now and has always been rags to riches, but with the crucial corollary that all men have an equal chance of getting rich. Were it not for that corollary, the American ideology and its disastrous consequences might not have come about. All countries, all empires have pursued gold and mammon; there is nothing new in that. But the claim of equality in America transformed everything. Children when mature stop believing in fairy tales, but the pernicious lie “equality” continues. There is not now, and there never has been, any equality of any manner, type or persuasion in America, from Jamestown and Plymouth to the space and computer age. Yet lies can be useful, On some American stamps is the word “equality.” Politicians rapture provincial ad fortiori orating on equality. The American elite pretends it has no class privilege. And the lowliest, poorest worker in the country is allegedly endowed by equality, or rather a chance to grow rich, with a certain dignity besides being trash.

The heart of the matter was noted by the historian Christopher Lasch. The ideology of equality and getting rich “provides the elite with an antielitist ideology.” Lasch thus referred to two simple facts; in reality there is a ruling elite in the U.S., and despite appearance the elite does have an ideology. American propaganda extols first economic opportunity, and second and third some airy contemptibility for little minds called freedom and democracy. With regard to the American propaganda of “the leader of the free world,” you must assume that somewhere in the world the people are unfree. Are the Russians somehow unfree to drive to the country for a picnic?

Since the whopper is spread by media turds and others who believe an intellect is unnecessary, let me examine sociologically each institution in American society in terms of equality, and I will be certain to take “equality” and the nebulous “social equality” on their own terms. Is there any economic or financial equality in the U.S.? I had rather argue the British peerage to be democratic than that there exists any financial, economic or money equality. The money lords of Wall Street are better paid that bus drivers and dish washers.

Do Americans enjoy political equality?

Thus, anyone on television with the delusion of equality must make it subtle and magnify small insignificant truths to impute the lie.  In other words, the U.S. has such an obvious gap between rich and poor that the capitalist faithful must needs be very artful in pushing the strange co-occurrence of Marxist classlessness and American capitalist “classlessness.” George Washington and Lenin did have considerable political differences. As to small truths for greater lies, the media, for example, extol a poll stating that Americans believe that their bosses deserve their higher pay to imply in an inductive leap that impecunious Americans support the rich and superrich.

The next most important institution in society is the political. Do Americans enjoy political equality? The surest proof that this is untrue is that the powerful easily have more influence on politics than the powerless. The political and economic institutions are closely bound; in the U.S. money in the bank is politicians in the pocket. America has the most corrupt political system the world has ever seen.

The next institutions are miscellaneous–the religious, military, legal and family. Churches are as categorizable into classes as are the automobile one drives. Attending the Episcopal church is attendant with a good possibility of being rich. Catholic churches still have not economically closed the gap between themselves and the Protestant church. And know this, that the well-to-do church, such as the Episcopal, maintains a small satellite church in the poor quarter in order to keep the riffraff out of their precious shrine. In the poor black part of town it is “Jesus saves!” Mormons appear to be rather well off, although their theology is whacko. Since Jews are the single-most successful group in the U.S. attending a synagogue has a certain statistical association with wealth, though Yahweh is as real as the tourist puffery shroud of Turin.

The military and legal institutions are strictly hierarchical and have no equality. It is worth noting however, that the American military has a noted laxness of authority comporting with the spirit of democracy. The ideology of classlessness dictates a loose hierarchy compared to the military of other nations. But that laxness has not prevented the American military from constantly bombing this and that land. And finally, the American entwinement of the legal profession with politics means that everyone from the president to the lowly criminal lawyer are professional brethren. The legal profession is marked by vast differences in success; only an elite of attorneys succeed in being elected in a rigged political system to high office.

That there should even be equality in the family is strongly opposed by the right wing, yet there has been a movement to democratize it. What is most preposterous is not husband-wife equality, which might become more of a reality in the future, but instead child and parent equality. It seems that American liberalism is promoting this absurd idea. Certainly radicals are not promoting spoiled brats wanting to “divorce” their parents. Sweeping changes in the means of production have decreased Americans’ authority over their children. The advertising industry exploits children and juveniles and has a vested interest in weakening parental authority, thereby allowing the freedom to consume of the underaged. American children, so little disciplined, are conscripted by industry to increase consumer spending and thereby profit. The exploitation of the young helps to contribute to family and generational chaos. Government and industry have appropriated parental authority, in loco parentis The quality of care of the young has thus suffered. Finally, neither is there equality among families for the same reason that there is no economic equality.

American equality at bottom is nothing more than the fact that the rich are not supposed to “rub it in,” to lord it over the poor, who blame themselves for their failure. This is the basis of the American superficial friendliness and openness. The American penchant for smiling is, as it were, an acceptance of the ideology that a man has a chance to get rich. Those who do rise from rags to riches or to power become 100 percent American heroes., and hence the celebrity cult of Abraham Lincoln, Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, Thomas Edison and Ben Franklin.

In sum, the ideology of wealth has formed American culture more than any other idea. Sociologists have calculated the probability of going from poor to rich and found it highly unlikely, but the slim chance has not diminished “the American way of life.”  America is many things: an economic powerhouse, a land of dramatic contrasts, a technological innovator. But above all it is a money culture, which conditions and informs every aspect of Americanism. For good or evil, the “almighty dollar, a phrase coined by Washington Irving, takes primacy and is the altar where all Americans worship.

John Fleming

John Fleming is author of a book, Word Power, available through Amazon.com

Filed under:

The political stupidity of the ABC cuts

We hardly need to be reminded of it, but the ABC funding cut demonstrates the utter political ineptitude of the Abbott government.

It’s not just that it’s an obvious broken promise (one that Coalition members compound foolishly by denying).

Nor is it merely that the government is picking a fight with the most wide-reaching and respected media organisation in the country. Or that Coalition partners the Nationals will bleed votes as a result of cuts made to regional coverage.

It highlights the extent to which the government is out of touch with ordinary Australians, preferring the counsel of a small group of right-wing ideologues to the clear-cut research that the ABC is still the most trusted news source in the country. But this isn’t the worst of it, not by far.

Even the ABC critics have angrily made the point that the government has barely attempted to build a case that the cuts could be sustained. It’s an open secret that there are some areas of the ABC that could use some trimming – like any major organisation. But this isn’t an excuse for such major cuts, nor was it used as one; it provided an opportunity for the government to hold a mature debate about spending and debt, about public broadcasting’s role and the virtue of keeping a responsible eye on all government-funded institutions. But as is becoming common, the chance was missed by Abbott et al, and any political capital that might have been gained was squandered. If you listen closely, you can still hear echoes of Coalition politicians fighting the wrong battle.

It’s not even that the government is doing all this at a time when it needs all the support it can get, as even its few remaining boosters – Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, the Australian – turn on it. The cuts have almost no support on the rest of the political spectrum, apart from two libertarian senators, who feel the same way about all government spending. Christopher Pyne, wily fox that he is, knows the score: recognising the unpopularity of his own cabinet’s decision, he’s campaigning against it. Hopefully he kicks his own arse while he’s at it.

So what’s to gain? The support of a handful of angry old men who would never vote for anyone else anyway.

The point’s been made over and over that the ABC is essential – in regional areas, in order to prevent the total domination of the likes of News Corp, in order to cover the sorts of community service broadcasting that commercial stations could never afford, and so on and so on. What’s the argument in favour of cuts? No idea, except to shore up a broad, almost ideological point that there’s “too much waste” in government. It comes in the context of a much wider conversation about the budget that the government has already lost. Did Hockey and Abbott think this would help?

If the point was that the ABC is wasting taxpayers’ money, the Coalition has never actually bothered to make it. (If it was that the ABC is an ideological threats to the government, as it prefers News Corp’s support, it would be honourable to say this.) As usual, Abbott has gone silent rather than front up and explain the reasoning behind his government’s stance. Like the recent bluster about shirt-fronting Putin, he’s less than brave when push comes to shove. In this case he’s handed the steaming pile to his good friend and supporter Malcolm Turnbull.

Four hundred jobs will be lost in the ABC alone, five regional radio stations, the TV studio in Adelaide, all non-news TV production outside Melbourne and Sydney and numerous programs and presenters.

But the most humiliating thing about the campaign to cut public broadcasting, for all of us, is that all of the pain caused, all this traumatic upheaval, all this stupidity and lost political capital is the result of an ineptitude that could be exposed in a single short message on Twitter (@mmccwill): “Politics, apparently, should be understood in context: $254million cut from ABC. Extra $245million found in May budget for school chaplains.”

The Abbott government deserves the kicking it’s going to get over this.