Capitalism Is Incompatible With Democracy

Capitalism & Democracy Capitalism Is Incompatible With Democracy Capitalism Unjust and Unsustainable Capitalist Rule Companion, 'Democracy', Is A Lie Noam Chomsky RECD =  Really Existing Capitalist Democracy (Noam Chomsky phrase) https://chomsky.info/20130305/ Can Civilization Survive Capitalism? Noam Chomsky Alternet, March 5, 2013 The term “capitalism” is commonly used to refer to the U.S. economic system, with substantial state intervention ranging from subsidies for creative innovation to the “too-big-to-fail” government insurance policy for banks. The system is highly monopolized, further limiting reliance on the market, and increasingly so: In the past 20 years the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, reports scholar Robert W. McChesney in his new book “Digital Disconnect.” “Capitalism” is a term now commonly used to describe systems in which there are no capitalists: for example, the worker-owned Mondragon conglomerate in the Basque region of Spain, or the worker-owned enterprises expanding in northern Ohio, often with conservative support — both are discussed in important work by the scholar Gar Alperovitz. Some might even use the term “capitalism” to refer to the industrial democracy advocated by John Dewey, America’s leading social philosopher, in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Dewey called for workers to be “masters of their own industrial fate” and for all institutions to be brought under public control, including the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Short of this, Dewey argued, politics will remain “the shadow cast on society by big business.” The truncated democracy that Dewey condemned has been left in tatters in recent years. Now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority “down below” has been virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will. There have been serious debates over the years about whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. If we keep to really existing capitalist democracy — RECD for short — the question is effectively answered: They are radically incompatible. It seems to me unlikely that civilization can survive RECD and the sharply attenuated [reduced] democracy that goes along with it. But could functioning democracy make a difference? Let’s keep to the most critical immediate problem that civilization faces: environmental catastrophe. Policies and public attitudes diverge sharply, as is often the case under RECD. The nature of the gap is examined in several articles in the current issue of Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Researcher Kelly Sims Gallagher finds that “One hundred and nine countries have enacted some form of policy regarding renewable power, and 118 countries have set targets for renewable energy. In contrast, the United States has not adopted any consistent and stable set of policies at the national level to foster the use of renewable energy.” It is not public opinion that drives American policy off the international spectrum. Quite the opposite. Opinion is much closer to the global norm than the U.S. government’s policies reflect, and much more supportive of actions needed to confront the likely environmental disaster predicted by an overwhelming scientific consensus — and one that’s not too far off; affecting the lives of our grandchildren, very likely. As Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis report in Daedalus: “Huge majorities have favored steps by the federal government to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated when utilities produce electricity. In 2006, 86 percent of respondents favored requiring utilities, or encouraging them with tax breaks, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Also in that year, 87 percent favored tax breaks for utilities that produce more electricity from water, wind or sunlight [ These majorities were maintained between 2006 and 2010 and shrank somewhat after that. The fact that the public is influenced by science is deeply troubling to those who dominate the economy and state policy.  [comment:  how do we know public is influenced by science and not by lobbying NGOs funded by capitalist interest, as is usually the case, and how do we know that the science that the public purportedly relies on is correct? ] One current illustration of their concern is the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” proposed to state legislatures by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded lobby that designs legislation to serve the needs of the corporate sector and extreme wealth. The ALEC Act mandates “balanced teaching” of climate science in K-12 classrooms. “Balanced teaching” is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to “balance” mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the “balanced teaching” advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states. [comment:   K-12 refers to kindergarten to year 12 of capitalist-controlled government indoctrination of children in capitalist serving education system- here  ] Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking — a fine idea, no doubt, but it’s easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits. Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change. One side consists of the overwhelming majority of scientists, the world’s major national academies of science, the professional science journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  [comment:  but they are sponsored by capitalists, so how can we trust them? ] They agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with severe social and economic effects. It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues. The other side consists of skeptics, including a few respected scientists who caution that much is unknown — which means that things might not be as bad as thought, or they might be worse. Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of skeptics: highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC’s regular reports as much too conservative. And these scientists have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately. The propaganda campaign has apparently had some effect on U.S. public opinion, which is more skeptical than the global norm. But the effect is not significant enough to satisfy the masters. That is presumably why sectors of the corporate world are launching their attack on the educational system, in an effort to counter the public’s dangerous tendency to pay attention to the conclusions of scientific research.  [comment:  Wonder if the propaganda dissemination is at all associated with Tavistock Institute disciple organisations? ] At the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting a few weeks ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned the leadership that “We must stop being the stupid party … We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.” Within the RECD system it is of extreme importance that we become the stupid nation, not misled by science and rationality, in the interests of the short-term gains of the masters of the economy and political system, and damn the consequences. These commitments are deeply rooted in the fundamentalist market doctrines that are preached within RECD, though observed in a highly selective manner, so as to sustain a powerful state that serves wealth and power. The official doctrines suffer from a number of familiar “market inefficiencies,” among them the failure to take into account the effects on others in market transactions. The consequences of these “externalities” can be substantial. The current financial crisis is an illustration. It is partly traceable to the major banks and investment firms’ ignoring “systemic risk” — the possibility that the whole system would collapse — when they undertook risky transactions. Environmental catastrophe is far more serious: The externality that is being ignored is the fate of the species. And there is nowhere to run, cap in hand, for a bailout. CONTINUED https://chomsky.info/20130305/ COMMENT Influence of policy by 'public will' sounds good on the surface, but it's not good at all.  The public really *is* stupid.  However, rule by capitalist elites is just as stupid, because they go against the interests of what are supposed to be their own people.  I say 'supposed' to be.  It's hard to say what a capitalist economy site with mixed disparate populations actually might be.  It is difficult for me to view such places as 'nations'; to me, these places are stations (like cattle ranches).  So, it is rule by oligarchy in disparate capitalist controlled cattle stations that the West has and that Western Europe is turning itself into. We have seen the public march demanding what will damage what is left of the public's nation, because the public is denied informed consent and the public is easily indoctrinated and manipulated. 'Democracy' as a system cannot work in any form. I would prefer a dictatorship that is based on enshrined values and aims of a related European people that are a people, and a socialist or communist economy. Chomsky refers to public opinion versus government policy in the US regarding environmental issues.  But public opinion doesn't impress me at all, especially when you consider the amount of money that is poured into shaping public opinion.  Scientists are also capitalist-owned, and there is dissenting scientists with opposing views.  So who is right? That the capitalist take that step further to project their influence on the already indoctrinated children in the American education system (via passage of the ALEC Act) is an interesting extension of the already enormous influence and indoctrination, in service of the capitalist rule by oligarchy fake American 'democracy'. Found myself thinking, if man ceased to exist on the planet, would it be such a bad thing?  While there are special men, man is not that special.  And everything has to cease to exist at some point.  The end is inevitable.

Capitalist Trojan

CAPITALIST TROJAN INFECTING THE WEST THEFT OF HERITAGE WHEREVER Europeans are invaded, raped, gang-raped, brutalised, home invaded, surrounded by foreign settlements, carjacked, murdered, vilified, dispossessed, politically suppressed, persecuted and prosecuted: it is by the ruling capitalists and their bureaucrats, who rob Europeans of their heritage, aided by the capitalist-owned media and capitalist-sponsored, self-serving, lying, Western intelligentsia. CAPITALISM that exploits, divests and endangers all Europeans, assisted by capitalist-sponsored and disseminated FALSE IDEOLOGIES of:  'liberalism', 'progressivism', 'democracy' (that is rule by capitalists and their economists), and the illusion of 'individual liberty'; in conjunction with a sustained campaign of promoting entirely fraudulent and dangerous 'universalism' of universal 'human rights' conferred on alien, competing interests by capitalism (versus the preservation and primacy of inalienable rights and heritage of Europeans, that is being criminally transferred to invaders) CAPITALIST-ENDORSED and capitalist-sponsored false ideologies are evangelised and enforced by the obedient, well-trained dogs of the capitalists:  the capitalist co-opted left-wing political parties, co-opted trade unions, and co-opted capitalist-sponsored 'progressive' interests groups), that comprise key components of a sustained decades-long top down and street level capitalist-sponsored campaign of propaganda and lies, that has grossly undermined vital interests and existential needs of all Europeans. COMMENT This is the Western capitalist-serving trojan that has infected and is destroying all European societies, to further the aims of US-Anglo led global capitalism. It is the same trojan that capitalism sponsors and endeavours to inject into independent, sovereign foreign nations that are the target of US-Anglo-led capitalist strategic conquest, per se and a target in the greater contest for US-Anglo capitalist global hegemony. The breakdown of European demographics and the breakdown of the traditional order and of the political dynamics of European societies, is the breakdown of the independence and strength of Europeans to assert European people's national interests (as a people); and it is breakdown of the power to resist exploitation by foreign capitalism, as European societies are drawn further into the nation-divesting snare that is promotion of so-called 'diversity' and 'progressive' values by US-Anglo capitalism and by its vast network of capitalist sponsored NGOs and international network of interfering and independence violating American embassies, installed by a  corrupt, disgusting and dangerous, capitalist-psychopath exploited, crime-ridden, neglected, poverty-stricken, murderous, nationally indebted, American capitalist elite serving, US-NATO capitalist mercenary deploying, war criminal, generationally raped American taxpayer third world slave-state.

Don't Buy Capitalist Propaganda

Don't Buy Capitalist Propaganda http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/06/dont-blame-masses Don't Blame the Masses Published on Saturday, August 06, 2016 by The Boston Globe by Stephen Kinzer Whether or not the world is in an unusually bad state these days, it certainly seems so. Even Americans, famous for our lack of interest in world affairs, now closely follow news from far away. Much of it is frightening. Terror attacks are claiming innocent lives around the world. Syria is being torn apart. China and Russia boldly pursue their national interests and defy American dictates. Turkish democracy is evaporating. Iran and Saudi Arabia are at each other’s throats. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on interminably. The European Union is staggering, with Britain quitting and others perhaps to follow. Meanwhile, several European countries are drifting toward right-wing authoritarianism. Donald Trump’s campaign threatens to take the United States in the same direction. This is the opposite of what many Americans expected. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 set off a wave of triumphalism in the West. Americans welcomed the “end of history” and presumed that all countries would quickly adopt political and economic systems like ours. There was to be a “peace dividend” as tranquility settled over the globe. People would become more prosperous. Nations would cooperate. All would gratefully submit to America’s will. Those were delusions. The world has gone in precisely the opposite direction, toward tribalism and conflict. We are now paying the price for grave misjudgments. The first was our misunderstanding of the Soviet collapse. It was a Soviet failure, but we interpreted it as an epochal American victory. That led us to believe that in a post-Cold War world, American power would grow, turning us into a global hegemon that other countries would happily follow. This was never realistic. Moments of change require adaptation, but the United States is not good at adapting. We are used to being in charge. This blinded us to the reality that as other countries began rising, our relative power would inevitably decline. Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another “peer power,” we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China. The ideological conflict of the Cold War was so intense that when it ended, Americans assumed tranquility would follow. In fact, the Cold War was simply a temporary phenomenon that masked centuries-old political, social, cultural, and religious conflicts. Nationalism and tribalism, which began shaping the world long before Communism was invented, have reemerged rather than fading away. Our wrongheaded reaction to the end of the Cold War was America’s first major contribution to today’s global turmoil. The next was our decision to invade Iraq. That invasion continues to shape the world. The recent surge in Islamist terror is one of its long-term results. So are the refugee flows that have destabilized Europe and contributed to the rise of extremist political movements there. It is an object lesson in the long-term effects of intervening in faraway lands — a lesson we still seem not to have learned. Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America’s economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to “disruption” and the “global supply chain,” many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation’s wealth. Our leaders told us that the end of the Cold War would make America more powerful than ever, that we had to invade Iraq because Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, and that deregulating our economy and signing trade deals would improve the lives of ordinary people. We cannot be surprised that as the scope of those deceptions became clear, people would become angry. American elites are hardly the only ones who have cynically misled their people. The same happened in Europe. “Ever closer union” was another product of the dopey optimism that infected the West in the 1990s. It ignored the evident fact that most Europeans, like most people everywhere, feel loyalty to their own nation or group, and that this loyalty is not easily transferrable to diffuse and distant conglomerations. The EU has been run largely for the benefit of the business class. Ordinary Europeans have come to realize this, and it has angered them. The same anger is enveloping countries from Egypt and Nigeria to Brazil and Venezuela. In our complex modern age, the interdependent world does not run smoothly by itself. It requires farsighted leadership that takes the fate of ordinary people seriously and favors diplomacy over coercive force. Blaming the masses for stupidly supporting demagogic politicians is mistaken. People quite reasonably resent what their leaders have done to them over the last quarter century. They demand something different, whatever it is. That is the central cause of the new world disorder. © 2016 Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC Stephen Kinzer is a former New York Times reporter and the author of Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (2006) and Reset Middle East: Old Friends and New Alliances: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey,Iran (2011). www.stephenkinzer.com http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/06/dont-blame-masses COMMENT THEFT OF HERITAGE WHEREVER Europeans are invaded, raped, gang-raped, brutalised, home invaded, surrounded by foreign settlements, carjacked, murdered, vilified, dispossessed, politically suppressed, persecuted and prosecuted: it is by the ruling capitalists and their bureaucrats, who rob Europeans of their heritage, aided by the capitalist-owned media and capitalist-sponsored, self-serving, lying, Western intelligentsia. CAPITALISM that exploits, divests and endangers all Europeans, assisted by capitalist-sponsored and disseminated FALSE IDEOLOGIES of:  'liberalism', 'progressivism', 'democracy' (that is rule by capitalists and their economists), and the illusion of 'individual liberty'; in conjunction with a sustained campaign of promoting entirely fraudulent and dangerous 'universalism' of universal 'human rights' conferred on alien, competing interests by capitalism (versus the preservation and primacy of inalienable rights and heritage of Europeans, that is being criminally transferred to invaders) CAPITALIST-ENDORSED and capitalist-sponsored false ideologies are evangelised and enforced by the obedient, well-trained dogs of the capitalists:  the capitalist co-opted left-wing political parties, co-opted trade unions, and co-opted capitalist-sponsored 'progressive' interests groups), that comprise key components of a sustained decades-long top down and street level capitalist-sponsored campaign of propaganda and lies, that has grossly undermined vital interests and existential needs of all Europeans. Ordinary Americans may well be famous for lack of interest in world affairs, but the American oligarchs and conglomerates are certainly not disinterested or hands-off:  they have been violating the affairs of millions of people around the world, whose governments they have undermined, installed or deposed and whose countries they have bombed — when the American capitalists, the CIA, and American foundations are not otherwise bankrolling and organising political and social unrest in foreign nations, that are targeted for American capitalist take-down that benefits the bank accounts and investment returns of the American ruling elite. Whatever is 'frightening' in the world today, America, it's Western capitalist allies and it's Wahhabi allies supporting Islamic radicalism and tearing down nations in the Middle East and Africa, can take 'credit'. The statement: "China and Russia boldly pursue their national interests and defy American dictates" is annoying to read. Of course, China and Russia will pursue their national interests.  Why wouldn't they, and who are the American ruling oligarchy to seek to interfere with the sovereignty and national self-determination of the multitudes that comprise the nations of Russia and China. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the bet is that Turkey was always a CIA-MI6 capitalist puppet and, as the capitalists are not fussed whether their puppets are dictators or not, it is a good guess that Turkey was never what passes itself off as 'democracy' in the West (ie socially liberal mayhem, propaganda, suppression, unions working against working class interests, and the ruling capitalists in control, no matter who is elected, while the people of nations of these so-called 'democracies' are hostage to a program of third world invasion).  Compared to that, give me Turkey any day.  The bet is Turkey isn't implementing a program of genocide against the Turkish people.  Yes, they're brutal to rebelling out-groups; but they're protecting interest of Turks as a people. What Turkey may now be doing is regaining some of its independence from US-Anglo capitalist control, which the US-Anglo capitalists are displeased with; which would probably explain the attempted CIA coup in Turkey?  Either that, or this whole Turkey thing is a fake, to ensure that the ruling party's grip on control of Turkey is solid, and the US-Anglo capitalists are party to this ruse. The reference to "right-wing authoritarianism' is ridiculous.  Today, any white, or European, political organisation that stands even remotely by white, European, traditions or social norms, or lobbies for policy that is actually in the interests (for a change) of the people that comprise any white, European nation, is labelled 'right-wing'.  'Authoritarian' is a nice new twist, though. Trump is then drawn into this, as if Trump is the next Hitler (as the corporate media propaganda screams), but Trump is simply an American capitalist that wants what Israel has and what endangered white America wants:  a wall to keep the infiltrators out. Oh, and he is, ostensibly, an isolationist ... which could pose problems for Wall Street warmongers. Trump is infinitely a better choice than the unindicted criminal Hillary Clinton, but at the end of the day, if Trump is elected, Trump will be guided by advisors and by the demands of a 'democracy' that is in fact an oligarchy, so electing Trump is not vastly different to electing Hillary Clinton.  But, on the bright side, Trump hasn't got form destroying other nations, being a psychopath thrilled by the murder of Libya's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, or of getting ambassadors killed (to name just a few of Hillary Clinton's electoral selling points). I reject this picture that's being painted: There was to be a “peace dividend” as tranquillity settled over the globe. People would become more prosperous. Nations would cooperate. Capitalists aren't dreamers; they're cold-hearted and greedy planners, devoid of sentimentality or delusions about a capitalist peace-and-prosperity nirvana emerging on the planet. But, yes, they most certainly would have anticipated that American power would grow and they most certainly aim to make their profit-making interests paramount, as they work towards global hegemony:  that serves them and only them. Nationalism and what is referred to as 'tribalism' (ie.  belonging to one's own racial and cultural group) is not something undesirable that has 're-emerged':  it is belonging to a tribe of people (a nation, a cohesive social group bound by heritage and history, and often a group bound by blood).  It is something that has been suppressed in Europeans (whites), to the detriment of Europeans, who have been exploited and divested of their nations by capitalists implementing a program of population replacement by invasion; and this is a CRIME that is being committed by capitalists against the people of all European nations.  Europeans have legitimate and inalienable rights to identity and integrity (be it spacial, biological or social etc), and the legitimate right to pursue what is in the interests of European peoples (versus European and American capitalists). Refugee flows are not merely flows of migrants from Iraq:  the US-led capitalists have destroyed or otherwise helped to destroy a series of Middle-Eastern and African countries.  But, whatever the case in that regard, it is not incumbent on European peoples to take the hit and to destroy European societies, no matter what the capitalist owned media and the capitalist sponsored intelligentsia may preach. The destruction of European societies, destruction of European social order, and the destruction of European nations as nations, is a long-standing capitalist agenda implemented per US-Anglo capitalist clear intent to neutralise the future potential for resistance to (and independence of) Europeans from international capitalist rule, following the CAPITALIST defeat of Germany in 1945.  This agenda has also been methodically implemented by European Union capitalists, under the banner of the European Union and its earlier incarnation; and it is an agenda that has been implemented by all European-settled, US-Anglo capitalist controlled, colonies. The reference to "extremist political movements" is ridiculous:  Europeans, wherever they are, have a right to self-determination and a right to preservation of European interests and European societies, and it is absolutely imperative for the shrinking European demographic worldwide to ensure that the interests of Europeans are not only protected, but also firmly advanced, since such interests have been systemically grossly undermined over the passage of decades of  self-annihilating sleep-walking into the deliberately laid snare of what the capitalist thieves call 'diversity' — which is, in fact, capitalist implemented path to white genocide, that is a trap precisely because the longer the program of invasion (in the capitalist PR-spun guise of 'diversity') is permitted to continue, the more impossible it is to remedy without major civil upheaval and war.  The capitalist push for 'globalisation' is merely a push for US-Anglo led capitalist global hegemony, and it has absolutely nothing to do with 'benefiting everyone', and certainly would not have been envisaged in those terms by nation destroying greedy capitalists and currency speculators. The reference to "dopey optimism" infecting the West in the 1990s is ridiculous.  If any 'optimism' was displayed, it was propaganda as a ruse, to con the working classes out of their heritage, as capitalists edged closer to divesting Europeans and destroying European nations.  The co-opted unions and 'left' parties that do not support working-class European (white) interests aided the capitalist thieves, making them accomplices to the robbery of the heritage of Europeans. Don't blame the masses because the masses do not have a choice, even when they vote for those that pose an 'alternative'; because there really is no alternative.  Whoever is elected of the mainstream political parties, is much the same proposition as those that are destroying European societies worldwide. Today's capitalist or capitalist serving politicians that are painted as 'right-wing', 'authoritarian' or a threat to 'democracy' (ie to what is hostile rule by oligarchy), are no such thing in reality.  Voting for them is merely the lesser of two evils and merely forestalling slightly the inevitable destruction of one's nation and people, by capitalism, unless the capitalists are stopped by war or revolution. Reclamation of European heritage and significant change can only be manifested by revolution.  But I don't see a revolution any time soon.  So say goodbye to Europe and say goodbye to the European people, in this lifetime. THEFT OF HERITAGE WHEREVER Europeans are invaded, raped, gang-raped, brutalised, home invaded, surrounded by foreign settlements, carjacked, murdered, vilified, dispossessed, politically suppressed, persecuted and prosecuted: it is by the ruling capitalists and their bureaucrats, who rob Europeans of their heritage, aided by the capitalist-owned media and capitalist-sponsored, self-serving, lying, Western intelligentsia. CAPITALISM that exploits, divests and endangers all Europeans, assisted by capitalist-sponsored and disseminated FALSE IDEOLOGIES of:  'liberalism', 'progressivism', 'democracy' (that is rule by capitalists and their economists), and the illusion of 'individual liberty'; in conjunction with a sustained campaign of promoting entirely fraudulent and dangerous 'universalism' of universal 'human rights' conferred on alien, competing interests by capitalism (versus the preservation and primacy of inalienable rights and heritage of Europeans, that is being criminally transferred to invaders) CAPITALIST-ENDORSED and capitalist-sponsored false ideologies are evangelised and enforced by the obedient, well-trained dogs of the capitalists:  the capitalist co-opted left-wing political parties, co-opted trade unions, and co-opted capitalist-sponsored 'progressive' interests groups), that comprise key components of a sustained decades-long top down and street level capitalist-sponsored campaign of propaganda and lies, that has grossly undermined vital interests and existential needs of all Europeans.

Opium Wars

Opium Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6p9ox_T8LE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1j4Gb9ege4  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk6gfAtwZ7Q Watching this.   Making another batch of yoghurt, & trying to gear up toward marinading chicken wings (not real keen). Love the old footage of Hong Kong.

WWI Hell March, Capitalist Propaganda, Thought Control, Censorship, Noam Chomsky & WikiLeaks

WWI Hell March,  Capitalist Propaganda, Thought Control, Censorship, Noam Chomsky & WikiLeaks German Army Hell March WWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6rPoCoSkG4 Noam Chomsky American academic BBC interview 2003 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqznqIpkZz0 [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] PARTIAL EXTRACTS Narrator: ... His comments post 9/11, when he described the US as a leading terrorist state drew hostile fire even from allies on the left. He has the gloves back on, denouncing Western greed & hypocrisy. Noam Chomsky: We need not rehearse the reasons why Britain, and later the United States, have been determined to control the Gulf region. It's enough to recall the observation of the State Department in 1945 that the resources of the region are a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history  <<  Chomsky most recent work:  "Pirates & Emperors"  >> Insert: Book: The City of God (410 CE) Sait Augustine (354-430) Latin Church Father b. North Africa Bishop of city of Hippo The City of God written by him following sack of Rome by Alaric & the Vandals Pagans blamed conversion of Roman empire to Christianity for sack of Vandals http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aug-city2.asp [In respect of Chomsky book title]   Noam Chomsky:   That's plagiarised from Saint Augustine, who in The City of God has a story about Alexander.  His forces capture a pirate, and there's an audience between the pirate and the emperor, and he asks the pirate, "How dare you molest the seas?" And the pirate tells him, "I am a small man with a tiny boat, so they call me a pirate.  You're an emperor with a vast navy and you molest the world, but they call you an emperor." And that's a good allegory for the world and, in particular, for the contemporary world. The pirates are the ones who were contemned and not the emperors. Of course, the general population is attacked by both the emperors and the pirates. Saint Augustine is not saying that the pirate is a nice fellow; he's just saying he's a small criminal as compared with a major criminal. Interviewer: So, who does control the world?  Who are the emperors? Noam Chomsky: Overwhelmingly the United States since the Second World War, Britain before that, and concentrations of private power, which are enormous and tyrannical corporations closely linked to the powerful states. It's a network of concentrated power with international institutions, like IMF and so on, which sometimes call themselves the 'Masters of the World'.   It's a phrase that was in the Financial Times, a little ironically, but not wrong. Actually, they call themselves the 'Masters of the Universe'.  Adam Smith called them the 'Masters of the World'.  Now they're called the 'Masters of the Universe'. They didn't have space age in Smith's time. Interviewer: But don't you sometimes need big government to deal with big business, since there is a kind of balance between these large forces? Noam Chomsky:   It's like saying that there's a balance between the members of the Board of Directors of General Motors. Yes, there's some kind of a balance.  But they're so closely interlinked and they're connected, that to first approximation they're the same thing. Interviewer: Now, did September 11th, do you think, mark a change in world politics? Noam Chomsky:   It was a historic event.  It was the first time in hundreds of years that the West, Europe, and its offshoots, have suffered the criminal atrocity that they constantly carry out against others, which is quite a change.   That's why there's such shock in the West.  This kind of thing we do to you, you don't do it to us. It's like the reaction in England in the so-called Indian mutiny rebellion, in India.  Tremendous shock. [tape distortion] ... would use it as an opportunity to intensify repressive and somewhat violent actions, and that's just what's happened. [skip] Interviewer: You make quite a lot in the book on the fact that there is freedom of expression in America.  But what you do point to is something more insidious, because you suggest that there is actually -- although there may be freedom of expression -- there's a control of freedom of thought. Now, how does that happen? Noam Chomsky:   It was understood, back in the time of the First World War that it's becoming much more difficult to control people by force. The popular struggles have led to the development of unions, the parliamentary Labour party, franchise extended and so on, and coercion is just not going to work by force.  So, therefore, you have to control thought. It's very striking that the contemporary systems of thought control, which are highly developed, very self-conscious, you know, leaders talk all about it.  They come from England and the United States. So the British Ministry of Information, which the reader of any Orwell knows what it was, that's from the First World War. It was aimed primarily to convert a pacifist population into raving anti-German fanatics, and it worked.  And it impressed people. It impressed the business world.  That's the origins of the modern public relations industry. It impressed American intellectuals who developed the conception of what they call the 'manufacture of consent', control of thought. It impressed Hitler, who blamed the German defeat on superior Anglo-American propaganda and vowed that next time Germany would be prepared. And it has led in the United States primarily, and in England secondarily, to huge industries devoted to control of attitudes, because you cannot control people by force. Interviewer: But dissent has been growing since the 1960s in the Western world.  I mean, people are far more sophisticated now.  Even popular culture reflects the fact that anything from the X-Files to the film, The Insider, that the idea of people discussing things of trying to manipulate public opinion; I mean, that's highly developed now. Noam Chomsky:   Sure.  But when people were under the lash they knew about it, too. People are so aware of it, that it has led to tremendous cynicism about almost anything. I mean, nobody believes what government officials say, nobody believes what they read in the press, people don't believe professions.  It's led to enormous cynicism and tremendous opposition.  In fact, in my view, the more crucial things than the things you mentioned, are opposition to aggression. Just take a look at the current war in Iraq and compare it with, say, the Vietnam War. It's a comparison which is often made about the protest, but the comparison is completely false. The opposition to the war in Iraq is far greater than it ever was to the war in Vietnam at any remotely comparable stage, and this is the first war, I think in European history, Europe and the United States -- the first one I can think of -- where there was massive protests before the war.  It's never happened. I mean, in the case of Vietnam War, there was no protest until years after the war. Just in the last 30 or 40 years, in say the united States, the level of civilisation among the general public -- not intellectuals, that's a separate category, but among the general public -- it's advanced enormously. Interviewer: So, do you think that intellectuals are not sufficiently engaged?  Do you think that they have become cynical? Noam Chomsky Intellectuals are a separate category. Intellectuals are mostly servants of power. I'm talking about the general public, not the intellectual world. They remain pretty constant, I don't think they are subject to these changes -- except marginally, of course, to some extent. But they are quite different and quite generally -- it goes right through history -- intellectuals have been servants of power. Take, say, the First World War. On all sides  --  Germany, England, United States, France -- intellectuals were extremely enthusiastic about the war. There were a few dissenters and the best known of them ended up in gaol, like Bertrand Russell, for example -- or, Eugene Debs, in the United States, or Rosa Luxemburg, in Germany. Very small group of critics.  Some of them best known in prison. But most intellectuals were enthusiasts for their own country, and that's common and it remains common. Intellectuals write history, so you have to be a little cautious about what they say about themselves.  And it looks prettier when it's written in books. [CONTINUES] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqznqIpkZz0 [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] NOAM CHOMSKY ON: JULIAN ASSANGE |  WIKILEAKS https://youtu.be/5MzPbRlxvfI Article Noam Chomsky Defends WikiLeaks & Declassifying Information "The threat is that the public will know what the government is up to." By Alexandra Rosenmann / AlterNet April 18, 2016 http://www.alternet.org/media/noam-chomsky-defends-wikileaks-and-declassifying-information  CAPITALISM WANTS YOU! WWI Propaganda

UK Welfare Sanctions & Disappearing Welfare Claimants

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://www.rt.com/uk/329080-benefits-welfare-cuts-destitution/ Disappearing Welfare Claimants https://www.rt.com/uk/329080-benefits-welfare-cuts-destitution/ Close to 1.5 million benefit claimants could face destitution after disappearing from the welfare system, a former Labour minister has warned. Published time: 15 Jan, 2016 14:10 Field warned the government is unaware of how many claimants have been left impoverished because it is failing to properly monitor why they have disappeared from the welfare system. Following a forensic audit of the government’s welfare reforms, he found that the whereabouts of 1.5 million UK residents who drop off the state’s welfare rolls each year is unknown. The study, which will be published in full by Civitas on Monday, was authored by Field and his senior parliamentary researcher Andrew Forsey. It found that some of the welfare claimants who have been wiped off the system were hit by benefits sanctions, while others may be in jail or abroad. The study said that roughly half a million benefits sanctions were imposed on welfare claimants in the financial year 2014/15. It called upon the government to conduct an urgent survey of those citizens whose benefits are scrapped annually under the government’s sanctions regime. The report welcomed the government’s decision to trial a yellow card early warning scheme, but suggested the policy should be supplemented with non-financial sanctions for claimants who fail to meet the terms of their welfare program. It suggested the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) introduce trials whereby vulnerable people are offered a“grace period,”during which requirements imposed on them are softened to ease the “transition or acute difficulty.” The report also called for greater transparency, and urged the government to reveal how much expenditure is withdrawn under its benefits sanction regime. “The number of sanctions was halved in the year leading up to the 2015 election, but it still remained at half a million. Sanctions are therefore being applied at a scale unknown since the Second World War, and the operation of sanctions on this scale makes for a most significant change in the social security system as it has existed in the post-war period,” Field and Forsey wrote. “A number of people – we know not how large a number – are being totally disconnected from both work and welfare, and risk being exposed to destitution.” “Justice calls for a major survey of what happens to the hundreds of thousands of people thrown off the welfare rolls each year through the sanctioning process.” Field and Forsey said it is absolutely unacceptable for the government to strip benefits from masses of people annually and not concern itself about how this group of people will survive. “The ability to track the wellbeing of the whole population is now a part of being a grown up government, let alone a ‘One Nation’ government,’” they added. The DWP said Forsey’s and Field’s claims are baseless. “People leave the benefits system for many reasons, including when they go to work – which is good news,” a DWP spokesperson told the BBC. “It’s extremely unlikely anyone would leave the benefit system because of a sanction. The truth is we have record employment and we spend £80 billon supporting millions of people who are unemployed or on low incomes.” Field resigned from the government under former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. In the wake of the 2010 election, he led an independent review into poverty in Britain for the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. He also co-chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger in Britain in 2015. https://www.rt.com/uk/329080-benefits-welfare-cuts-destitution/ Field = Frank Field It looks as though he has completely changed his tune? He's gone from being pro sanctions to lobbying on behalf of the sanctioned?  That doesn't make sense. Field is also opposed to freedom of speech, by the look of the Wikipedia entry. "Private views thought to be damaging to public conduct, and expressed in public, would be monitored and suppressed." [Wikipedia] The guy sounds like the Stasi.  Sounds rather scary.  lol  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Field_%28British_politician%29  '“Moral and civic duties provide the very foundations upon which civilised life is built and are a proper area for legislative prescription and if necessary sanctions”' -- Frank Field [purportedly, book:  'Neighbours From Hell'] Source | Wirral Leaks "Frank, who has attacked the Conservative government for cutting benefits to the poor, is ready, for those who fail to abide by his model of society, to…well…cut their benefits! Not only this, but the imposing of sanctions should be seen as a criminal justice matter! ‘The agency deciding what action should follow a repeated failure to meet a [citizen’s] contract should be the police and only the police. Once the police have the required  evidence to levy a sanction…[it] should automatically come into operation on the appropriate benefit.’" Source | Wirral Leaks 'Wirralgate Cover-up' mentioned.  Sounds ridiculous.  It's about a tape recording of using 'inappropriate language' (eye-roll).  Local council thing.  More | here. Enjoyed the Wirral Leaks article.  Interesting analysis of policy and poverty. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Check out how the UK government let up on screwing the vulnerable public in the lead-up to the election.  What's the bet that was a deliberate slackening of sanctions they otherwise would impose? Democracy doesn't work.  People are still fighting for the same things that keep getting wound back by governments, and governments are always inefficient and dodgy. People shouldn't have to incessantly campaign for their governments to do the right thing.  They should be doing it, and they should be transparent without people having to campaign for transparency -- all the time. I don't think they have a right to sanction anybody.  The government is the front for the interests that have appropriated land and privatised it, effectively corralling or imprisoning free men as labourer-slave human livestock, who are no longer free to live off the land that was stolen from free men:  hunters and warriors.   Those that have stolen land and imprisoned free men are therefore obligated to provide for the well-being of those whose heritage they have usurped and whose self-sufficiency they have denied.  How's that for an argument?  lol It sounds reasonable to me, because if you dismantle society as it was, privatise land and deprive a people of the ability to sustain themselves in their customary way (ie dismantle a way of life that involved freely and communally living off the land), in order to create societies that are based on usurping land and usurping resources for the benefit of a few, then those people that have basically been displaced by such are system are undeniably entitled to sustenance etc.  I'm talking about responsibility of nations to nationals, rather than notions  of universal responsibility. PS ... I think I might have a romanticised view of the 'displaced' by the system.  Just checked out some tabloid mayhem reports, and I'm horrified by what I see.  Where are the proud hunters and warriors I imagine? Now I'm kind of inclined towards state totalitarianism, strict breeding restrictions, and a selective breeding regime.  lol ꕤ

TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

TRANSCRIPT [Text emphasis added] Professor Noam Chomsky:  You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy. I started by saying that one of the relations between capitalism and democracy is contradiction. You can't have capitalist democracy, and the people who really sort of believe in markets (or at least pretend to understand them) - so if you read Milton Friedman and other philosophers of so-called libertarianism - they don't call for democracy they call for what they call 'freedom.' There is a very constrictive concept of freedom. It's not the freedom of a working person to control their work, their lives, and so on; it's their freedom to submit themselves to control by a higher authority. That's called 'freedom', but not 'democracy'. They don't like democracy and they're right; capitalism and democracy really are inconsistent. Actually, what's called libertarianism in the United States, is about as an extreme example of anti-libertarianism that you can imagine. They're in favour of private tyranny – the worst kind of tyranny. Tyranny by private, unaccountable, concentrations of wealth. When they say, “Well, we don't want government interference in the market”, they mean that. They mean - maybe they don't understand it, but if you think it through, it's pretty obvious – the kind of interference in the market they want blocked is the kind that would permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are. It's worth bearing in mind how radically opposed this is to classical liberalism. They like to invoke, say, Adam Smith. But if you read Adam Smith, he said the opposite. He's famous for not, you know, the claim is that he was opposed to regulation – government regulation – interference in markets. That's not true. He was in favour of regulation, as he put it, when it benefits the working man. He was against interference when it benefited the masters. That's traditional classical liberalism. This, what's called 'libertarian' in the United States, which likes to invoke the history that you’ve concocted, is radically opposed to basic classical libertarian principles and it's kind of astonishing to me that a lot of young people - say, college students - are attracted by this kind of thing. I mean, you can, after all, read the classical text. So take, say, Adam Smith. Adam Smith, at the time – he's the icon, you know. He was considered to be a dangerous radical at the time, because he was pretty anti-capitalist in this pre-capitalist era that he was opposed to, and he condemned what he called the 'vile maxim of the masters of mankind': all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else. That's an abomination. Take the phrase 'invisible hand' – everybody's learnt that in high school or college – Adam Smith actually did use the term, rarely. But take a look how he used it. In Wealth of Nations, his major work, it's used once. And if you look at the context, it's an argument against what is now call neo-liberal globalisation and what he argued is this (in terms of England, of course): he said, suppose in England that the merchants and manufacturers invested abroad & imported from abroad; he said, well that would be profitable for them, but it would be harmful to the people of England. However, they will have enough of a commitment to their own country, to England (it's called a 'home bias', in the literature); they'll have enough of a 'home bias' so that, as if by an invisible hand, they'll keep to the less profitable actions and England will be saved from the ravages of what we call neo-liberal globalisation. That's the one use of the term in Wealth of Nations. In his other major work, Moral Sentiments, the term is also used once, and the context is this - remember, England is basically an agricultural country then - he says: suppose a landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land everyone else has to work for.  He says:  well, it won't turn out too badly, and the reason is that the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people.  So he will make sure that the necessities of life and the goods available will be distributed equitably to the people on his land, and it will end up with a relatively equal and just distribution of wealth, “as if by an invisible hand”. That's his other use of the term. Just compare that with what you're taught in school, or what you read in the newspapers. And it goes across the board. Like, everybody probably has read the first paragraphs of Wealth of Nations, which talks about how wonderful it is that the butcher pursues his interests, and the baker pursues his interests, and we're all happy, so we should be in favour of a division of labour. Everybody's read that. How many people have read a couple of hundred pages into Wealth of Nations, where he has a bitter attack on division of labour for interesting reasons, and reasons that were standard in the Enlightenment in which he lived (very different from ours)? He says if you pursue division of labour, people will be directed to actions in which they'll complete the same mechanical actions over and over. They'll be de-skilled and that's the goal of management for over over 100 years: de-skill the workforce. He says that's what will happen if you pursue division of labour. He goes on to say, this will turn people into creatures as stupid and as ignorant as a human being can possibly be and, therefore, in any civilised society, the government will have to intervene to prevent any development like this. That's Adam Smith's view of division of labour. Next step – now, here's a research project.  Take the standard edition (scholarly edition) of Wealth of Nations produced by the University of Chicago Press – naturally, on the bicentennial – with a scholarly apparatus (you know, footnotes and everything else) – and take a look at the Index.  There's a scholarly index. Look up 'division of labour'. This part of the book is not referenced. You can't find it, unless you decided to read 700 pages; then you can find it. But that's his concept of the division of labour, and it continues like this – and I'm not extolling, you know, a lot of things that you can harshly criticise, like his advice to the colonies – but, nevertheless, it's a very different picture from what's called 'libertarianism' or 'capitalism' today. Capitalist democracy would self destruct - capitalism would self destruct – and that's why it hasn't been instituted. The masters understand that they cannot survive a capitalist economy – a laissez fair economy. Take a look at the history; it's pretty interesting. So the United States, when it was independent – so it could reject the rules of sound economics and develop. There were other countries that were poised for an industrial revolution and were given the same advice. Like Egypt and India. In fact, India already was the commercial and industrial centre of the world, moreso than England . Egypt was poised for an industrial revolution and it's not impossible that it might have developed as a rich, agrarian society. It had cotton – produced cotton. As I said, that's the main product (like oil today), and it didn't need slaves. It had peasants. It had a developmental government aimed that the industrial development. It could have taken off – just as India could have taken off. But they were not free to reject sound economics because they were ruled by British force. So they were forced to accept sound economics, and Egypt became Egypt, and the United States became the United States. India went through a century of de-development before it finally got independent. That's what happens when you apply laissez fair principles. In fact, that's essentially how the Third World and the First World divided. Take a look at the countries that developed. They are the countries who violated the principles. England, the United States, Germany, France, Netherlands. One country of the south. One country developed: Japan. The one country that wasn't colonised and was able to pursue the same course that the rich countries developed. I mentioned that in mid Nineteenth Century – 1846 - Britain was so far ahead of the rest of the world in industrial development that they did decide that laissez faire would be possible, so that moved to what's called a 'free trade era'. First of all, they imposed sharp constraints on it. They've cut off the Empire. India. India was not allowed. Others could not invest in India, their main possession; and India was not allowed to develop. And there were other restrictions. Pretty soon, British capitalists called the game off because they couldn't compete. By the 1920s, they couldn't compete with Japanese production so they literally closed off the Empire to Japanese exports. It's part of the background for the Pacific War of the 1940s. The United States did the same with a smaller empire in the Philippines. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. All the imperial systems decided: no more free trade, we can't compete. So they closed off the empire and Japan had no markets, no resources, and they went to war. That's a large part of the background. The United States, in 1945, did move towards laissez fair. In fact it was an important conference (the united states was basically running the world at that point, for obvious reasons) – there was a hemispheric conference called by Washington in February 1945 in Mexico, where the western hemisphere was compelled to adopt an economic charter for the Americas, which banned any interference with market principles. The goal was, in the State Department reports, to oppose the new nationalism in Latin America, which is based on the idea that the people of a country should benefit from the country's resources. That's 'evil', we can't allow that; it's Western and US investors who have to benefit from the resources. So that was the economic charter of the Americas imposed on the countries of the southern hemisphere, with one exception – here. The United States did not follow those policies. Quite the contrary. As I mentioned, there was a massive development of a state based economy with an industrial policy – the kind that created the modern high-tech economy. You can see it right across the river. Take look at MIT, one of the main centres of this **** If you had a look at MIT in the 1950s (when I got there) it was surrounded by electronics-based high-tech firms, like Raytheon and iTech, and huge IT firms. Take a look at MIT today, take a look at the buildings, it's Novartis, Pfizer and so on. The reason's completely obvious: during the 50s and 60s, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics based, so the way to get the public to pay for it was to scream 'Russians!' and to get them to pay higher taxes for the Pentagon, and then the Pentagon would fund the research and development – like my own salary, for example (I shouldn't complain too much) – and, of course, private industry was around there like vultures to pick up the products and the research and to market. Well, since the 70s, the cutting edge of the economy has been moving towards be biology based, so funding – government funding – has shifted. Pentagon funding is declining. Funding from the NIH and other so-called health related government institutions is increasing, and the private corporations understand that. So, now, Novartis, genetic engineering firms and so on, are hanging around trying to pick up the research that you're paying for, so that they can market it and make profits. It's just transparent. It's in front of our eyes, and it takes a very effective educational system to prevent people from seeing it. It's virtually transparent. That's the way this really exists in capitalist democracy, folks. A final word about democracy then, before I have to leave. There's a major attack on democracy all the way through. But by now it's reached the point which is pretty remarkable. Take a look at one of the main topics in the mainstream political science (and we're not talking about radicals). Mainstream political science is comparing public attitudes with public policy. It's a fairly straight-forward – it's hard work but a straight-forward effort. We have the public policy so you can see it. There's extensive polling. Quite reliable generally and consistent in its results. It gives you a good sense of what public attitudes are, and the results of this are published in the major books and articles - with references, if you like. The results are very straight-forward. About 70% of the population – the lowest 70% on the income scale – are literally disenfranchised. Their opinions have no affect on policy. Their elected representatives don't pay any attention to them. That's one of the reasons why many of them don't bother voting: they're not going to pay attention to them anyway. You know, I've read the technical literature to understand it in other ways. As you move up the income scale, you get a little more influence on policy. When you get to the top (and contrary to the Occupy Movement, it's not 1% - it's more like one-tenth of 1%) - when you get to the top where the massive concentration of wealth is, they basically set policies. That's not democracy; that's plutocracy. And that's what we have accepted. The good thing about it is that it's changeable. It's not controlled by force. We are very free in that respect, thanks to victories over the centuries. It's not possible now for a corporation to do what Andrew Carnegie, the great pacifist, did in 1890. That gives a lot of options and you have to make use of them. I'm afraid I've got to leave. [17:35] APPLAUSE VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PSkGSk9kw&feature=youtu.be MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded 1861. --------------------- end --------------------- COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. --------------------- video credits --------------------- TITLE: A PROGRESSIVE VOICE VIDEO: Leigha Cohen AUDIO: Leigha Cohen & Cynthia Smith VIDO & SOUND EDITING: Leigha Cohen COPYRIGHT: LEIGHA COHEN PRODUCTION 2014 WEBSITE: www. leighacohen.com ---------------------  COMMENT Good talk.   Also relevant to the US free trade agreements that are going down now. Thought I'd transcribe what was said. Nearing the end, I realised someone else may have transcribed this somewhere already. Never mind.  It's a good learning tool, focusing on every word.  Or it can be.  I hope.  LOL Missing word(s) where marked.  It's something of a drama playing audio at any volume level in this place right now, so filling the gaps will have to wait.  Think it was only the one word.  This took ages, but it's heaps easier now that I've figured how to minimise, position & hold my Writer window on top of the running video window, so I don't have to flip screens. *Part re interference in market they want blocked & tyranny reads kind of funny to me.  It's the interference they want blocked so they can get away with tyranny is what he's getting at, I think.  But the sentence seems confusing (to me). *I disagree with the last part, about there not being rule by force.  We are ruled by force & there's nothing we can do.  Look what happens to protesters.  When they're not beaten, imprisoned etc, martial law is imposed and they're beaten and imprisoned if they dare break curfew, I guess.