Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Who Is Inside America's Trojan Horse?

This post was inspired by attention given at Democratic Underground and elsewhere to Lou Dobbs's election integrity coverage on CNN.

Many of us know that the next "election," as with the last few, will not produce unanimous agreement about the results. Despite their political dominance, the regime in power has forfeited all of its credibility and can never again be convincing - of anything. So they don't try to have a believable election, instead drawing more power to themselves by dividing the public opinion over who really won.

Along the way to the "election," society must be primed for acceptance (think yellow cake and mushroom clouds, or leaked Diebold source code). In this case we are supposed to accept uncertainty (actually, inherent uncertainty is the most common thing we are choking on).

I realize it could seem uptight and possibly irrational to attack Dobbs, so I want to be clear that this is not what I'm about to do. Look at this series of reports he's done. It has surely raised the level of doubt about election results by multiple orders of magnitude. From my view that's a great thing. But Dobbs is not playing the role we really need, the one I choose for myself, that of advocacy journalist. Dobbs is informing his audience, occasionally showing some emotion. But, as far as I know, he is not using his precious air time to actively engage in creating solutions. Perhaps this is because he is trying his best, despite the occasional emotion, to be a straight-up neutral objective news person.

OK, nothing there that should seem like an attack, I hope. Maybe it even sounds like I'm cheering for him and appreciating his delivery of otherwise antiquated professionalism. That's what I'm hearing around me, actually, though its not where my analysis stops. I submit that Dobbs may be unwittingly contributing to the regime's overall effort to keep Americans divided. In this way, he is like a Manchurian Candidate. I have written about this paradigm before, in the GuvWurld Blog (in an essay that is also in my book, We Do Not Consent).

Many people in trusted roles in society behave in ways that are sympathetic to those controlling the regime's war of terror. Like many such people, Dobbs may have done this with the intention of doing the opposite. All Manchurian-like. What we have is a huge Trojan Horse in this country and inside are the Registrars for paperless DREs, airport screeners who detain babies and old ladies, teachers and principals who punish students for art or words criticizing government, police who regard peaceful protestors as terrorists, and many other groups central to the functioning of society. In these examples the people are mostly going to be acting in ways that society supports and encourages, despite the damage they cause. This is why the essay linked above is called We Are Being Set Up: The Manchurian Nation.

So by no means am I saying don't watch Dobbs, or don't put his segments out on the web. Just consider if he could possibly be filling the role I described, and whether so many others may be unaware of their own appeasement. Appeasement. This is a word we should own. The biggest appeasers in the world are the loyal corporate media and the tiny fraction of people who still give blind trust to this regime.

Now, if Dobbs were to start advocating for hand counted paper ballots, in a way intended to actually cause that to happen, I will be happy to be wrong here. If Dobbs uses his air time to organize masses in protest, you will know that I was the first to say I was incorrect. Shall we try to get him to do these things, to become the advocacy journalist we need? Maybe if you know him personally, but otherwise don't give away your energy hoping someone else will produce the results you seek. The energy is better invested in organizing on the local level where a united community can draw upon the enormous strength of People Power.

I believe we should challenge the legitimacy of our local governments. Such offices are occupied by politicians who currently have our implicit Consent to govern us. This Consent is not really being sought. It is instead being assumed because we allow it to be taken for granted. Local government is our last level of representation, after the federal and state bodies that have long since stopped listening to We The People. Not listening is the least of it, though, when you consider first the craven lawlessness and then the blatant harm done to the People by those claiming to be our protectors. If the local government will not actively resist and provide its own protection against these harms, their reticence might be seen as the mark of the Manchurian.

We simply cannot continue cooperating in a system where the power that (selectively) enforces law also has the ability to indefinitely detain us without regard to that law. The Constitution is our social compact. It has been rendered largely inoperative. To me that means the deal is off. If the fascists are going to behave like they're not bound by it anymore, what good does it do us to fearfully measure our actions within these now phony confines? I'm not looking for rules to break or suggesting we all get together to violate anyone's Constitutional Rights. I'm saying those rules and Rights only exist as part of a deal that has been broken and no longer exists. We have to stop thinking like we're playing the old game. This is a new game. Only it is no game at all. Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!


Posted by Dave Berman - 3:25 AM | Permalink
Comments (1 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Read or Post a Comment

Democracy postponed. Whence franchise? Ask Diebold...
- David Brin

(from the Six-Word Story contest on Wired Magazine online at http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/sixwords.html)

Posted by Blogger Kathryn @ Oct 26, 2006, 7:00:00 PM
Permalink to comment | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
<< Home
As shown on
Dave's new blog,
Manifest Positivity

We Do Not Consent, Volume 1 (left) and Volume 2 (right), feature essays from Dave Berman's previous blogs, GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent, respectively. Click the covers for FREE e-book versions (.pdf). As of April 2010, paperbacks are temporarily out of print. Click here for the author's bio.

Back Page Quotes

"Give a damn about the world you live in? Give a damn about what you and I both know is one of the most shameful and destructive periods in American history? If so, do something about it. You can start by reading We Do Not Consent."

— Brad Friedman, Creator/Editor, BradBlog.com; Co-Founder, VelvetRevolution.us

"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It’s also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can’t repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn’t exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."

— Paul Lehto, Attorney at Law, Everett, WA

"Dave Berman has been candid and confrontational in challenging all of us to be "ruthlessly honest" in answering his question, "What would be better?" He encourages us to build consensus definitions of "better," and to match our words with actions every day, even if we do only "the least we can do." Cumulatively and collectively, our actions will bring truth to light."

— Nezzie Wade, Sociology Professor, Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods

"Dave Berman's work is quietly brilliant and powerfully utilitarian. His Voter Confidence Resolution provides a fine, flexible tool whereby any community can reclaim and affirm a right relation to its franchise as a community of voters."

— Elizabeth Ferrari, San Francisco, Green Party of California

"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."

— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media

"What's special about this book (and it fits because there's nothing more fundamental to Democracy than our vote) is the raising of consciousness. Someone recognizing they have no basis for trusting elections may well ask what else is being taken for granted."

— Eddie Ajamian, Los Angeles, CA

"I urge everyone to read "We Do Not Consent", and distribute it as widely as possible."

— B Robert Franza MD, author of We the People ... Have No Clothes: A Pamphlet for every American