Featured image via Moroccan Congress in USA.
One of the greatest assets of the US government over the decades — perhaps the past century — has been its ability to co-opt movements which threatened its existence. The marginalisation of Socialism, for example, in the early 20th Century is a spectacular example of this. Although the movement was violently put down with great loss of life, Socialists policies were actually implemented by the US government, albeit in watered-down forms. Minimum wage, social security, unemployment ‘insurance’, et cetera: all were originally presented to great popular approval by the Socialist movement.
Another example is the Civil Rights movement from mid-Century. The vision of the movement was no less an attempt to use the democratic process to create greater political, social, and economic equality than Socialism decades before. Concurrently, it was a much of a threat to the entrenched corporate interests, which had absolutely no desire to see minorities be empowered. The movement was crushed by assassinations of the most powerful leaders — Martin Luther King, Jr, and Malcolm X, specifically — and vigourous suppression of organised groups, like the Black Panthers.
There are other examples of such events throughout US history, but most are not as impressive as the Socialist and Civil Rights suppressions. The fundamental technique in defusing the potential ‘threats’ inherent in these movements — ‘threats’ being the desire for systemic change, and the empowerment of the disenfranchised — is not military force or assassinations, but rather the coöptation of specific policies of these movements. This allows the establishment (aka USA, Inc.) to defuse a potentially profit-reducing situation with watered-down, high-profile adoption of apparently socially progressive programmes, which have actually been turned into tools of further economic, social, and political oppression.
As an example, Social Security is in theory an enforced savings programme, where one contributes money from present wages in order to support oneself in old age. What it really is, is simply a taxation scheme to provide the US government with what is called a ‘float’: a fund of money which is earmarked on the books for one purpose, but in reality actually used to fund something else. This remakes the concept of an enforced savings programme into a tool of oppression, because it the money extracted from wage-earners by taxation is not actually used for the prescribed purpose. Rather, the money is simply ploughed into the USG’s general fund and spent like any other tax monies. All that is really left in the Social Security’s nonexistent “trust fund” is a towering stack of IOU’s, and a list of people to whom money is owed eventually, maybe.
I could go into other examples, such as minimum wages, but that is outside the focus for this post. Rather, I want to convert the specific into the general: these coöptations are not merely isolated accidents, but actually how the USA, Inc. system protects itself against attempts to reform it. Just to be clear, this is a system reaction, not a proactive plan: there is no shadowy conspiracy of lizards, Rothschilds, or Bilderbergers planning every step of the world’s people. USA, Inc. is an agglomeration of relatively dull-witted people with little-to-no ability to understand big picture events, or even really be aware of reality.
There is very easy evidence of the dull-wittedness which I posit: consider the amount of time it took the US government to adopt Socialist or Civil Rights platforms — in watered-down form — in any obvious manner. Socialist Party candidates were on the Presidential ballot; Civil Rights marches were bringing hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets in protest. These are all eventuations which would not seem to be in the best interests of someone or some group trying to control the world. This is simple perception management: it is a far, far better thing to never have any protests, because then people will think their complaints with the system are just personal issues, rather than system problems.
Moving right along from there.
With a tool in mind, I’d like now to turn to the Middle East Revolutions. To address the USG’s opinion of the region, there are only two things the Middle East is good for: oil, and a platform for attacking Iran. Any disruption to the either of those things is a very disagreeable, needing correction by means economic or military. These Revolutions represent disruptions of both facets of the USG’s collective mindset on the Middle East, because not only is the oil supply no longer in ‘friendly’ hands, but the ability of the USG to attack Iran is severely disrupted. The Revolutions are more than just overthrowing dictators, and expressing the Middle East peoples’ desire for responsible governance; they are also overthrowing USG plans for the region.
It should go without saying that the USG will not tolerate this. Reality must conform to the USG’s expectations, not the other way around. So, every single Revolution, if it seems as though it is to be successful — and I suspect they all will — USA, Inc. will roll out its age-old tool of self-preservation. It will attempt to coöpt the Revolutions and turn them into their complete opposite, thereby guaranteeing continued USA, Inc. stability, and profit growth.
Only this time, those tools will not work. At all. And for one, simple reason: every single Revolution in the Middle East has been, and will be, based upon a simple expression: “I will either die or win”. There is no coöpting the acceptance that one might die in the attempt of securing what one wants to see for the good of one’s fellow people. Fear of death is the most powerful demotivator ever devised, and once people have stripped themselves of this fear, and accepted the possibility of death, not even bullets can stop them. To repeat, there is no coöpting a movement which is driven by people who have no fear of death.
What USA, Inc. will be attempting to do, therefore, is coöpt the uncoöptable. It has tried this in the past, and failed, most spectacularly in Vietnam and Iran. It will try again on the entire Middle East, however, because it is systemically unable to understand that there are some movements which cannot be stopped by any means. Indeed, attempting to influence the unfolding of said movements only makes them more antagonistic toward the USA in general; examples of this can be again found in Vietnam and Iran.
These Revolutions in the Middle East will not be stopped, and at this point the best thing the USG could do is simply step back, and not try to interfere. By instead taking a very hands-on approach in the attempt to further its own agenda, it only ensures the governments which arise from these Revolutions will have very chilly opinions of the USA in general. The result of this will be far worse than the total defeat in Vietnam and Iran: the Middle East controls the oil, and when the people are in control of those oil sources — as I suspect they will be — the USA will no longer be a favoured customer. Indeed, it will be a disfavoured customer, because they people of the Middle East will have seen USG and USA, Inc. actions as being part of their problems, and a force to prevent those problems from being solved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.