Two commenters at my place took the position that 1. Occupy are the good people and 2. that Monsanto aren’t evil – they’re just clever business people. It’s not the person but the notions behind what he/she says that I address below:
We have one hell of a dilemma. On Delingpole, a left-liberal, Samantha, wrote:
His comments do not reflect current Social Science/Psychological studies on the #OWS movement, therefore his leanings must be a result of his own cognitive bias or he’s merely refracting back — at least to his growing audience — popular sentiment.
There’s much to comment on in that comment. “Current Social Science/Psychological studies.” By whom? By those interested in Occupy as a positive, i.e. the left-liberals and where are the studies conducted? In universities and thinktanks. And who runs those? Tenured staff and those staff must be of a certain way of thinking to have the job in the first place these days. This is not talking through my backside as I have not so long ago been in the field – in universities – and the bias is in the questions one is asked. I was literally asked if I was humanist quite a few times.
Any new job now, you have to state your educational philosophy. Most people see that as child-centred learning and other feelgood terms, without thinking it through terribly hard. If you were to say “to restore education to sound principles”, you’re out. Neither the mood nor the particular jargon resonate and employers know how to sniff out a “troublemaker”. Forget his/her actual ability and experience.
The move to IB, to the World Core Curriculum – just examine the language in it. No direct global socialist outcomes are ever mentioned and therefore the left feel safe in claiming there are none, yet it’s chock full of jargon, vague feelgood sentiments, the narrative, without feeling any need to support them with argument – it’s like, in their eyes, Jefferson’s “self-evident” truths, which the left doesn’t believe in, by the way – truth being relative ‘n all.
Samantha refers to popular sentiment. And just why would there be this sentiment? She mentions reaction. Yes, reaction to the skewed and biased way things are run, reaction against false constructs. You saw at the ballot box reaction to Blair/Brown’s PCist global socialism and state/corporate cronyism, the utter corruption up top. Yet this is now taken to be a “bias”, as if Samantha’s side has no PC bias or else does but it’s equal and opposite to popular sentiment.
Whichever way you cut it, the reality is that there is an ideological push which reached its zenith 1997-2010 in this country although the other side were also bad in other ways – from Heath to Cameron. The quislings abound and yet they’d be stunned and hurt to be described as such. No, no, they’re the good people, trying to spread fairness, tolerance and equality.
The outcomes are never as stated, never as claimed, they never accord with the sentiments. This desperation to be the good person in the argument causes accusations of bias in those who are simply pointing out the fallacies in what’s going on. Since when was pointing out fallacies bias [with negative connotations]?
Forget good and bad for the moment – we see an outcome and don’t want it. Simple.
Then we come to Tom Smith and his apology for Monsanto et al. This is even more dangerous because it excuses great evil in the name of “business is business”, an expression that’s a standing joke in Russia – quote that to a Russian and he’ll smile because it is the catch-cry of the oligarch and the mafia. They see things very clearly over there, shorn of its BS spin.
Monsanto are doing a Dominic Green with a key resource. Having monopolized it, through government acquiescence, which Tom admits – he states it is the government involved in fact – one needs to observe what they intend with the resource – grain. It’s quite clear. Hybrid grains which are not only going to maximize profit but have the government woven into the mix preventing anyone from competing or growing their own and heavy subsidy bias brought to bear where legislation isn’t in place is a gross and gigantic Trust, as big as the Fed scam.
The common man might be an idiot in voting in these sorts of people and I suspect many might try to vote in Red Ed on the grounds that Cameron is appalling, which he and cronies are, nevertheless the common man has antennae in some areas and one is that when a giant conglomerate which transcends private/public separation gains control of a resource, that is monopoly and the result is not just lack of competition but loss of integrity of the resource – the Soviet experience is a clear example of it.
What we have is both the state and the global conglomerate working hand in hand, not only for profit but towards an actual agenda to create a new oligarchical v peasant social order, they’re using everything from austerity to terrorism to overpopulation to increasing scarcity* of natural resources [*utter BS – see the dialogue in Quantum following Green’s presentation at the eco-party as a dramatic statement of the reality] to corner a market in what people must have to survive and there is clear evidence, in Monsanto’s case, that it is to the detriment of the resource and to maximize their enrichment and therefore their power and control.
This is not benign. This is evil. Whether you see evil in the Christian sense, as personified or whether your sense of evil is a lack of positive outcomes – most people know evil when they see it in all its banality. Evil is banal, it’s bureaucratic, it silently grows as people sleep and they wake up enslaved and neither care any more because their ability to judge is now beyond repair or they see the hopeless futility of resisting. This is where evil wants us.
What was that exhortation over the gates of hell again? What did the Vogon guard bellow at Arthur Dent on the way to throwing him off the spaceship?
No – we shan’t abandon hope and no – we shan’t stop resisting. To do so is the beginning of the end. We all need to be, faced with these things, our own little Churchills and fight them wherever we find them, resist whenever their conniving wormtongues dream up some new scheme to increase control.
Tom speaks in neutral terms, as if this was just good business acumen, with no inside help, just as with JPM, GS and the Fed watchdog. As one who is pro-business first and sees the management point of view first, I bathe in his style of rhetoric – yes, that’s how I’d like it to be – smart business decisions, accrued result – but that is not how it has happened. Not by a long chalk. There are two business models – one working towards a share of the market and the other snuffing out all opposition with the aid of the state it bribes to do so. They are chalk and cheese.
We need to resist at the supermarket while there is still choice. Soon there’ll be no choice and we’ll have had no say in it at all. In schools, despite the results from half-arsed attempts at withdrawal and home-schooling – there is such a thing as learning theory, skewed though it has been by the hijackers – the current and future state of affairs gives us little choice really but to withdraw and employ our own teachers.
Otherwise we’ll be seeing a vast Stockholm Syndrome in play and all our forebears, all we have fought for will seriously be lost. That’s if we care about them and about us any more.