open Democracy News Analysis - corruption - Comments

BigC on "The Evolution of Evil"

BigC — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:57:58 +0100

Quote:

.... but in the meantime read my novel “Play it Again Uncle
Sam,” ....

Morty3 on "The Evolution of Evil"

Morty3 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:17:23 +0000

Play it Again Uncle Sam Play what again? You know. The game. What game? The game called “Fuck you Buddy” that American society is based on. Who invented the game? A mathematician called John Nash who was working for the highly secretive Rand Corporation in the 1950s. Didn’t he suffer from paranoid schizophrenia? Yes he did. Is it wise to base an entire modus vivendi on such a cynical assumption? Read “Play it Again Uncle Sam” and find out. ****************The Rand [research and development] Program was initially set up by the US military to develop new weapon systems after the war. However in 1948 it separated out into a non-profit making body supposedly to promote world peace and democracy, funded by the Ford Foundation. Because of the secrecy surrounding its work, it soon aroused suspicion as to its real motives, which were not allayed when it was discovered that there were links between its sponsors, the Ford Foundation, and the CIA. One was Richard Bissell, an early President of the Foundation who went onto to join the CIA and oversee the U2 Spy plane program. JFK was later to remove him from office over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Another was JJ McCloy, a personal friend of CIA Director, Allen Dulles. During the 1950’s Rand employed many top class mathematicians who developed a revolutionary concept called “Game Theory,” a system of strategies to be used by two or more players. The game could be applied to any potentially confrontational situation with the aim of achieving a state of “equilibrium,” from which neither player could better their position by deviating from their chosen stratagem. It was initially designed to predict Soviet responses to cold war confrontation but was later applied to all social interactions in society at large. One of its main architects was the mathematician, John Nash, an eccentric loner who had concluded that humans were ultimately selfish and devious creatures who schemed constantly to get one step ahead of each other. So cynical was he of “human nature” that he and his colleagues actually devised a board game called “Fuck you Buddy” to illustrate his paranoid hypothesis. Four players were given 7 coloured chips each with the ultimate goal of capturing all their opponents’ chips. Acceptable strategies included forming coalitions and agreements to cooperate, even though these would all eventually be reneged on. The winner was the last surviving player and the game seemed to work as long as it was understood that the modus operandi was to behave selfishly and outwit your opponents. But when the researchers initially tested the game out on their secretaries, they chose to cooperate, thereby ruining the ethos of the game, but this was conveniently ignored and even though Nash was exhibiting the early symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, the game was still launched. Throughout the fifties and sixties game theory was used to justify the arms race and the US nuclear strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD] which, because there was no all out war with the Soviet Union, was widely believed to have worked. It was also applied to the war against Vietnam, often with genocidal consequences. But even more controversially the game was used to give credence to the ideas of right wing economists like Friedrich Von Hayek and James Buchanan. These men insisted that even elected leaders and their bureaucrats were only self seeking tyrants with no genuine concern for the public good, and therefore all power was to taken away from them and the populace exposed to unfettered market forces. This would provide one explanation for the witchhunts of the fifties, where any politician even thinking of tinkering with the free market was denigrated, and in some cases terminated. The idea of society or community was consistently rubbished and the citizens of America encouraged to believe they were simply mindless consumers, whose only meaningful interaction with their fellow man was in the market place. Their primary responsibility was therefore to themselves and their families who were encouraged to consume as conspicuously as possible. One of the end results of this game has been a rapid decline in social mobility where the income of the bottom 10% actually fell in real terms, with the middle class seeing a small rise in their living standards and the over class seeing a quadrupling of their assets. This, unsurprisingly, has led to a destabilision of society with rising levels of violence and other anti-social behaviour as the “have nots” battle the “haves,” for their slice of the American Pie. The winners get to live in gated communities while the losers are herded into the ghettos of the inner cities. But not content with experimenting on its citizens, the US has exported this dysfunctional model of social disharmony via the Military/Industrial Complex, which has usually imposed it on third world societies around the world under the banner of “globalisation.” This has been portrayed by the western media as a positive force, especially in those areas of the world deemed crucial to US business or vital resource interests, especially the oil states of the Middle East and the “banana” republics of Latin America. This was achieved by citing “expansion of democracy in the region” whilst forcing regime change and unleashing market forces. This has invariably led to an overclass lording it over long established tribal or community based societies, often with disastrous consequences, including vengeful acts of terrorism. So what has happened to those opposing the imposition of the game? Over the decades there have been many foreign leaders, usually elected, determined to stop their country being drained if its natural resources and its people used as cheap labour. This has been particularly true of the countries of Latin America, a region that the United States has always regarded as its backyard, a repository of riches to be raided at will. Unsurprisingly many leaders of these countries have tried to stand up to this blatant imperialism, often by attempting to nationalise foreign owned businesses to regain control of their economy. This has always been met by outright hostility from the CIA who have helped organise coups and in some cases, assassination, of such interferers in the game. One of the most successful of these leaders has been Fidel Castro in Cuba. He terrified American Corporations when he came to power in 1959, after overthrowing the US backed Dictator, Fulgencio Batista, and confiscating American assets on the island. They were worried that his example would be followed by others in the region, so the CIA was instructed to get rid of him as quickly as possible, using any means at its disposal. However the US’s involvement in this illegal act was to be hidden at all costs so they covered their tracks using the concept known as “plausible deniability,” the euphemism for framing someone or some group to take the blame. But all their attempts failed and eventually they had to turn to the professional killers, the Mafia, to carry out the contract. But amazingly they too failed. However CIA assets did manage to infiltrate Cuba to attempt to foment counter revolution from within, the likes of Frank Sturgis and E Howard Hunt, two men who, a decade later, would play a pivotal role in the Watergate scandal. However some of these men, who were being manipulated like pawns in a game, turned out to be, or pretended to be, double agents working both sides of the fence. One such Agent was allegedly William Alexander Morgan, a man who had been trained at the Atsugi Air Base in Japan by US Military and a few years later turned up on Cuba fighting for anti-Castro forces on the island. Ironically the men under his command initially assumed him to be a CIA plant, so were understandably confused when he suddenly gained the confidence of Fidel and switched sides. Back in the States, in a probably staged press release Morgan was stripped of his American citizenship and labelled a traitor. But one year on, when Castro discovered he’d probably been a CIA plant all along, he was executed. Following in Morgans’ footsteps was another probable double Agent, Lee Harvey Oswald who amazingly had also been trained at the US base at Atsugi, although a few years after Morgan. He was to make a high profile defection to Russia, only to return three years later, with a Russian bride, whose uncle just happened to be a high ranking KGB officer. Amazingly his passport and citizenship were quickly restored with few questions asked. There is now little doubt that Oswald, or his double, was being manipulated by CIA Agents involved with psychological operations, to play a key role in the assassination of Castro and then possibly to take the blame. But, like Fidel, he, or his co-conspirators, proved too clever and the whole operation was turned and President Kennedy assassinated instead. This whole cock up has necessitated the biggest cover up in the history of the western world, a smoke screen that is still being maintained today. It is high time the US Intelligence community came clean about its role in this disaster but in the meantime read my novel “Play it Again Uncle Sam,” which is based on these events.www.playitagainunclesam.com

Iron Mike on "God Bless Ralph Nader"

Iron Mike — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:59:59 +0000

Quote:

All the nasty talk from Democrats about Nader insults we the people more than Nader.

As a delusional democrat, I think you've earned your share share of insults without Nader's help. Nader is irrelevant to the outcome of any election in the fall. Any effect he might have, will be to repeat his spoiler performance of the 2000 election in those states where the margin is close and help secure a Republican white house. Thanks for the assist Ralph!

echc on "The Evolution of Evil"

echc — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:54:28 +0000

kimmy
They are the exact same part.
We are being ripped off.
Argue with me all you want.
We are being ripped off.

Ttrryosborn on "The Evolution of Evil"

Ttrryosborn — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:14:37 +0000

echc;

Wholesale for less will subvert "the corporations"?

Competition is not as simple as it looks.How do you know the part you bought for $7 will last as long as the one that costs $40? How do you know your ignitor is not a knockoff?

Blue Jeans made in the US lasted 10 years, or more. Jeans that come from China at half the price last for 3.

echc on "The Evolution of Evil"

echc — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:35:31 +0000

kimmy

We all believe in freedom.

Just now, we are free to do as we are told.

It used to be the economy ran the stock market ran the economy. Now the stock market runs the economy.

In other words. The corporations are telling us what to do to make them richer. And like sheep, we are obeying.

A good example; I buy heating parts for furnaces. The wholesaler charges $40 for a hot surface ignitor. Through a friend that works for a manufacturer, I buy them for $7 . That is what they pay for them.

Where is the fairness?

Iron Mike on "Voting as Political Narcotic in America"

Iron Mike — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:50:59 +0000

Got it. Geez...wee bit sensitive are we? That's the last time I throw you a bone!

Ttrryosborn on "Voting as Political Narcotic in America"

Ttrryosborn — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:47:17 +0000

Mike;

You misspelled my name. It "ttrryosborn" no "e". Get it right

Sprawkills;

You got everything wrong. Get a life.

Iron Mike on "Voting as Political Narcotic in America"

Iron Mike — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:51:11 +0000

I'm convinced! That's right--I thing everyone here except Henry Hart, ttryosborne, and me should take a pledge to never vote in an election ever again. That will show those evil politicians!

;-)

Richard Lawson on "UNDP: Rose Tint my World"

Richard Lawson — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:21:03 +0100

...it's a bit rich for American to lecture us on democracy.

eric_5 on "UNDP: Rose Tint my World"

eric_5 — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:02:45 +0100

Civil servants, national or international, are appointed, not elected. Democracy has no direct role to play. Why should it?