The Illusion of Profit

We have been lied to. And we believe the lies because we don't want to bother to change the world. We live within a multiple set of illusions – coordinated to allow the takers to get away with pillage. 

 

There are many ways to define profit. Of course, the typical way is to count how much money one has gained. But this is a very narrow perspective. Money isn't everything – and everything we do has consequences. If the consequences of our actions are ignored when we calculate profit, we are essentially lying to ourselves. And why would we do this? Because for a while, we just might get away with it.

Have you ever noticed anyone ever talk about long-term real-world net profits?

No?

But I bet you've heard of quick profits – easy money – bubble economies – monopoly control – no-bid government contracts – revolving doors – favored status from big campaign contributions – subsidies and tax breaks for highly profitable companies – burdensome regulations on competitors – black markets – gray markets – Ponzi schemes – market manipulations – bailouts – excessive printing of money – etc.

Obviously, we live in a world where doing the right things often take second place to doing the “profitable” things (no matter the rules one bends or the externalities one ignores). At present, this is just the state of capitalism (and socialism, and even communism). However, there are serious consequences from everyone acting desperate on a regular basis. Of course, the captains of money don't care – they can't. In our economy, doing the wise thing often puts one at a disadvantage in the market. This is the fatal flaw of our markets.

the illusion of functional systems

We live in a world where doing the right thing often isn't a “practical” option.

Consider the oil company executive. Much of his wealth is tied up in stocks in his oil company. Therefore, the oil company executive schemes constantly of ways to keep company stock prices up. Consequently, he continues to mine and sell oil – even if there might be wiser (but not as “profitable”) energy options worth investing in. The consequences of his actions commit the massive oil company to decades more extraction of poisonous fossil fuels – and climate change – and multi-billion dollar “profits.” Nonetheless, eventually peak oil comes along and all the easy to mine oil is gone. There's still oil though. The oil company just has to deep water drill for it, or frack for it, or process it out of tar sands. Yikes! Conditions have radically changed for the oil company. These are extreme challenges. The newer sources of oil are much smaller, much more expensive to get, and much more dangerous to deal with. And more and more people want oil.

...But wait a minute. If a lot of people want something everyone has less and less of, wouldn't that drive prices (and therefore “profits”) up? Yes. But only temporarily, because eventually people would figure out how to do without as much oil. So the oil executive only wants prices to go up some – at least enough to pay for all that extreme mining – and any fines they might later have to pay for the extreme consequences.

Oil companies have had to resort to radically extreme mining to retain their “profit” stream. By definition, that would make them extremists. But hardly anyone has really noticed. There's still gas at the pump...

The oil companies want consumers and investors to think everything is business as usual, even though the whole oil business model has been turned on its end. The world has run out of easy to get oil. But the oil companies can't tell us that. They have committed their massive companies to decades more of oil production. They have to tell us that there is plenty of oil.

And what would happen if the oil company didn't have a long list of “proven” reserves ready to be mined? Investors would be suspicious that the oil company couldn't continue to be profitable. Consequently, the oil company executive has to list worse and worse resources just to keep his company's stock prices up.

the illusion of stability

Moreover, the oil company executive has to worry about consumers. With Global warming and the high price of gas becoming very serious concerns, and electric cars becoming reasonable options; there inevitably will be a mass consumer exodus from the gas fired automobile. But, the oil man still has a trick up his sleeve. He can stall that exodus by temporarily holding gas prices down. Car purchases are somewhat long-term commitments. If the oil company executive can convince the public to buy another gas-fired car, millions will be captured customers for years.

the illusion of value

So, how does the oil company executive convince consumers to make bad decisions? The way they always have; by advertising (and threatening to stop advertising). Consumers have been herded like sheep for decades now. Advertising works. (The most amazing example of how effective advertising manipulates people is when Monsanto etc. convinced voters to vote against GMO product labeling.) And in spite of the fact that everyone knows the mass media is a for-profit industry that cannot be trusted because it panders to its advertisers and investors, people still instinctively believe what they see on TV.

the illusion of integrity

Far too often, the mass media is notorious for leaving out information that might offend their advertisers. Far too often, we are distracted from the issues that are the most important. Because of distractions, what consumers don't often think about is; fossil fuels are poisons that pollute everything they touch, our whole civilization has been poisoned for decades, and on top of that we are changing our climate to the point life on Earth is threatened. And what consumers also don't think about is that our economy is simply a subset of the Environment and that no economy can survive a collapse of our Environment.

the illusion of the whole truth

There's one more thing the oil company executive has to worry about. Much of the company's oil comes from foreign countries. It could be argued that in some form or another, the United States has been at war over oil most of the time for over the past two decades – and his oil company hasn't had to pay for that. On top of that, when there is a war, the price of oil goes up. Oh, and one more thing; our military uses a lot of oil.

So, it would be an understatement to say that the oil company benefits from war at the taxpayers' and consumers' expense. Essentially, financial security for the oil company means insecurity for the world.

the illusion of security

The oil company executive realizes, however, that his company is not alone in benefiting financially from war. A number of government military contractors have become some of the richest people in America by raking in billions of taxpayer dollars. America spends more on what we call “defense” than most of the rest of the world combined. America has about 800 foreign military bases – we don't really know how many (or even why a foreign military presence should be called “defense”). And astonishingly, Americans don't even know how many “wars” we're actually in. But we apparently have been convinced we need to kill far away poor people with drones in the name of “defense.”

the illusion of defense

Many of the people of America have conceded that this is a messed up world and the best one can do is maximize one's “profits”... or at least that's what the oil company executive does. But the rest of us don't have to put up with that. We can always buy our gas from some other sleazy oil company. Or we could vote to end all those “wars” (well, no we can't, at least not directly). We could even vote to use our tax monies to pay for food stamps instead of enriching the merchants of death. But who are we going to vote for to do that? We've allowed our candidates to be chosen for us before we get to vote – and we have casually accepted the lack of direct democracy.

the illusion of choice

The sheer scope of overwhelming corruption is breathtaking. It would practically take a revolution to clean up Washington. And nobody really wants a real revolution. We'd rather just suffer.

the illusion of hopelessness

This is far from the best we can do – and the “captains of money” know it. But as long as they can treat their employees like slaves, their customers like addicts, their investors like suckers, and the environment like a limitless credit card; they'll keep playing the game. And they run the game. They have the money to tell our government “representatives” what to do. (By the way, that was once your money.)

the illusion of leadership

Everything is being pillaged. Moreover, your tax dollars and the bills you pay are what are financing this world-wide pillage. In effect, you are paying for our own long-term self-destruction. You are being used to destroy the environment of the planet to make a few people even more unbelievably rich. Ultimately, no economy will survive that.

the illusion of teamwork

In spite of it all, you might feel you're doing quite well... But are you really, and for how long? This has been the condition of all the well-to-do throughout history. The rich were the last to realize how bad things really were. And by the time things went bad for the rich, it was too late for everyone.

the illusion of success

Borrowing from the future is not profit. Our Economy has been operating like a Ponzi scheme. The study of economics has been an exercise in ignoring everything but money. Our society has not really considered the end-game to this process of turning everything of any real value into money. When all that is left is money, there won't be anything left worth buying.

the illusion of profit

Just remember; the Earth is our habitat. And if we trash our habitat, we don't get a new cage. Or, for those of you who are Christians; if we destroy God's creation, we cannot expect to be permitted into Heaven. In other words; focusing just on “profits” can ultimately lead to our downfall. Or, as has been said; the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

We have been lied to about putting the Earth's resources to beneficial use – no matter what is done. We have been lied to that the pollution our civilization has created is tolerable. We have been lied to about how our economy (dis)functions. We have been lied to about welfare for the rich. We have been lied to about our tax dollars being spent on “defense.” We have been lied to that we have a real choice in the matter. And we've been lied to that there is nothing we can do about this situation. Essentially, we've been lied to about most everything – to keep us in our place – subservient. But these lies have consequences. Our economy and our Environment are in serious trouble.

It's as if we've been sleeping while the house burns all around us.

the illusion of reality

...Now, try to imagine what truly waking up feels like.

Everything you thought you knew in your dream state was a lie.

Possibly, we could live somewhat well with this lie for a while, but eventually our economy must evolve or the consequences of its faults will kill us. As with any system that continues to get worse; fix it or it will break.

For decades, we've been ignoring the consequences of our actions because fixing things has seemed like such a monumental task. But in the time being, the task has gotten much bigger and the consequences more immediate. We are now cornered in our house fire. We now have to fight the fire or die... But for investors, that would be a simple thing. Just don't invest in fossil fuels. For consumers, it might cost a little more to buy renewable power, but in the long run (which now is only a few years ahead) it beats a collapsing environment and economy. And most importantly, we can't allow others to make our decisions for us. They have proven themselves too selfish and irresponsible time and again.

Sorry about all the bad news. But there is good news. The good news is that as a civilization, we now can mature. The good news is now we can start concerning ourselves with real-world profits and long-term issues.

Things can be much better than they are now.

That's what the takers don't want you to know.

...And because they have elevated money to the point of idolatry, that's what they don't realize either.

What Does America Have In Common With Nazi Germany?

I just recently learned the obvious; Adolph Hitler didn't just dream up the idea for the Nazi Concentration Camps. He had examples. And one of the best examples of the time was American Indian Reservations of the 19th century. From that revelation, I eventually realized that our civilization, by accepting the existence of our faults and adapting, can avoid a lot of misery and death.

Adolph Hitler did not grow up in a vacuum. I hear he was a big fan of stories of the American West. Even if he wasn't a fan, he had to have known about American Indians. He had to have heard some stories of the “conquest” of the American West. And he had to have known about the forced marches to “Reservations.” Maybe this is why so many traits of the Nazi Concentration Camps resembled American Indian Reservations.

The continued existence of American Indian Reservations is a time proven example that certain “undesirable” people can be rounded up and forced to leave desirable places. It is also true that if this “ethnic cleansing” is done with a callus hand, many of these “undesirable” people will starve, get sick, and die.

It isn't hard to imagine some despot studying American history and determining that the forced relocation of Native Americans to Reservations was a success. And it isn't that much harder to realize that some truly evil people might even view all the resultant starvation, illness and death as a desirable consequence.

...Hey, the goal was to get rid of them.

It's one thing to think that American Indian Reservations were no better than some Nazi Concentration Camps. It's another thing to realize that Hitler was likely inspired by American Indian Reservations to create the Nazi Concentration Camps.

The similarities are uncanny. But there are Americans who will not be willing to compare America to Nazi Germany. They don't want to believe that Americans could be that evil. No rational argument will convince them. They just won't believe it. Nonetheless, the forcing of Native Americans onto “Reservations” happened – a lot of innocent people died – and all of them were rendered politically impotent. Which proves it's not just Nazis we have to fear, it's the capacity of human nature towards monumental evil and indifference.

...And if Indian Reservations of the 1800's don't sound like Nazi Concentration Camp prototypes to you, well... you've never been forced onto a Reservation.

So, why hasn't this obvious revelation not been brought up more? Americans simply don't want to think about it. The potential for America (the good guys) to be evil on a mass scale simply doesn't fit into our self-image. We're supposed to be about freedom. But we don't want to think about the obvious fact that some powerful Americans feel they should have the “freedom” to oppress. (Examples: slavery, sweat shops, election rigging, union busting, bailouts, looting of pension funds, and today's student loans)

This habit we have of looking away from painful truth has made Americans easy to manipulate. Face it; if you don't want to face the truth, it's easy to distract you from the truth.

I've heard that the greatest crime most of us ever commit is the crime of indifference.

We just want our problems to go away. And if somebody else handles that, whatever they do, we usually don't ask questions. The super-greedy-rich are no different. But they have the power to really mess things up. And it looks like that's just what they did. To some extent, the indifference of the rich led to the “ethnic cleansing” of the American West.

Consider this:

There was no Welfare back before and during the Gilded age. The poor were just encouraged to go away... “Go West.” This emigration served as a pressure relief valve for Eastern U.S. society. If the desperate didn't like it there, they didn't have to riot or revolt. They could just leave. In fact, when all the other desperate souls were leaving too, there was no one left to organize a revolution with. This left the super-greedy-rich in control. And what did they do? They manipulated the laws so they could get even richer – now.

Herein lies the key to the fatal flaw of our civilization:

So many of us want it all – now.

...And very rarely can one get it “all, now” fairly, conscientiously, and sustainably. Which means some of us are willing to cheat, overcharge, cut corners, and ignore the consequences of our actions.

Back in the 1800's, the consequence of encouraging the poor to go away was that their desperation was just felt elsewhere.

The Native Americans who were in the way of this Westward migration of “legal” immigrants were literally in the way. Consequently, Native Americans were encouraged to go away too – at gunpoint.

So... My point is:

America had to suffer through the Native American “Holocaust” because the super-greedy-rich didn't want to help the poor.

Does any of this sound familiar?

(As I write this, certain Tea Party members of our American Congress have shut down our Government in an attempt to deny poor people health care.)

Have you ever wondered why Native Americans were not considered American citizens until 1932? Immigrants could become Americans. And anyone of European descent born in America was automatically considered American. But if your skin was brown, even if your ancestors had been here from time immemorial, you were essentially a foreigner. Sure, a whole lot of that was racism. But racism usually has more to do with struggles for resources than we'd like to admit.

Obviously, the people with guns wanted what the people without guns had. But more insidiously; the people in power wanted an empire – and they wanted other people to take it for them – preferably for free. So, they sent off the poor to do their dirty work.

By telling the poor to “go West,” the super-greedy-rich could get rid of their poverty issues locally and later lay claim to some of the mineral, water, and land wealth the poor whites took for them in the West. We still see the results of this today with massive mines on “public” land – owned by far-away corporations who hardly pay any taxes or royalties to anyone – including the U.S. Government.

What we have here is systematic exploitation that has existed since before the United States was even formed. And though the U.S. Bill of Rights was a huge improvement over monarchy, there still exists huge loopholes for the super-greedy to take advantage of others.

It didn't have to be that way. Native Americans could have been given a route to citizenship. The promise of freedom, democracy, justice, rule of law, and liberty is an inspiring expectation. Some Native Americans did try to become U.S. citizens – the Cherokee, for example. But they found no justice. The rule of law always ruled against them. And worse; the only thing they were free to do was leave – the Cherokee got forced, at gunpoint, off to Reservations (proto-concentration camps) in Oklahoma.

If 19^th Century America had been a just democracy, they would have allowed Native Americans citizenship under certain conditions. But, 19^th century America would then have had to respect some Native American rights. Of course, to the super-greedy, no Native American rights were better than some. You see; the super-greedy-rich don't do sharing. That's how they stay rich.

Once you really think about it, it shouldn't be any surprise at all that Hitler modeled the Nazi Concentration Camps after American Indian Reservations.

Do I think the super-greedy-rich actually planned the mass exodus of poverty and dissent and the ethnic cleansing and “Holocaust” of those who might otherwise be considered legal owners to wealth the super-greedy-rich coveted? Yes. Absolutely. They even bragged about it, like it was God's will. They called it “Manifest Destiny.” Now; think about Hitler's Aryan (master) race propaganda and his claim that it was their destiny to rule the World. If you don't see a cause and effect here, you must believe Hitler never studied history.

So, my next point is:

If we hadn't allowed the super-greedy-rich to get their way so often; we might have missed out on a history of misery, war, poverty, and oppression.

But that was all in the distant past, right? Well, not really. Just a couple of years ago, a multi-State coordinated government police action was used to force the Occupy movement off the streets.

In spite of the fact that many Americans don't want to accept it, this is how our government deals with dissent. And by the way, notice this footage was only aired on RT (Russia Today). I'll bet you never saw anything like this on Fox “News” or MSNBC. They're too busy going on and on and on about the next practically meaningless “election” of pre-picked candidates.

(Of course, no masses of Occupy people were killed or forced into concentration camps. But a number of people were unjustly spied upon, injured by police, and the U.S. has the highest incarceration per capita in the world.)

Which brings us to why the Occupy movement was there. Though I did not join the Occupy movement, I did agree with their premiss that wealth was unfairly being concentrated at the top at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

What we have been seeing for the past 30 years is the middle class being driven to poverty and the poor being economically forced into ghettos. Moreover, we see the poor without adequate health care.

Senator Alan Greyson exclaimed, during the debates on the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) while it was a Bill in Congress, that over 40,000 Americans die every year without adequate health care.

Now think about this; “undesirables” are being economically forced into ghettos and left to die. This is not quite Nazi Concentration Camps, but the similarities are disturbing.

Do we have fascists in our midst? The Tea Party claims to be “Libertarians.” But if they were really Libertarians, they would be threatening to shut down the Government to end things like the billions of dollars in subsidies to the super-rich oil companies. That's never going to happen, because the biggest financial backer to the Tea Party are the Koch brothers (oil men).

So... here in America; the super-greedy-rich have manipulated our Government to unfairly enrich the big monopolies at the expense of the citizens of the United States. The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer. The poor have been economically forced into ghettos. And thousands of the poor die every year because they don't have adequate health care.

Mussolini is credited with claiming that it shouldn't be called “Fascism,” and that it would be more accurate to call it “Corporatism.”

I see a pattern here. No one is being forced at gun point into Reservations or Concentration Camps, but scores of people are suffering and dying unnecessarily. And astonishingly, the Tea Party is willing to shut down our Government to see that this continues. I see that Fascism is alive and well in America, and these Fascists are willing to cripple our Government to get their way. They want Obama to fail. That means they want America to fail. That is just shy of treason. At the very least, where are the recall elections?

It probably sounds by now that I thoroughly distrust the rich. No. Like every other group of people, quite a diversity of opinion exists. I'm sure many rich Americans thought the forceful expulsion of Native Americans off their own land was a serious crime. I thank them for keeping things here in America from getting as bad as Nazi Germany.

However, I suspect most of the rich never really thought much about the consequences of these unfair monopolistic proto-fascist actions. If you choose to view greed as an addiction to money, it's easy to see that the super-greedy only pay attention to the money. Sure, they knew about the horrific treatment of Native Americans, but they didn't care. Sure, they know about the horrific health care issues of today. But they don't think that's their problem. They only care about their profits and their losses. It's like they're in a casino. 

Ironically enough, one can go to any Indian Casino these days and see essentially what I'm talking about. The addicted gamblers there only care about winning and losing. While they're playing the games, nothing else matters.

When we see this compulsively focused behavior in casinos, we recognize it as an issue – or even a mental illness. But we resist the comparison to the super-greedy-rich allowing others to suffer so that they can profit. We've been convinced that somehow the rich are better than us. We've been convinced that the rich are smarter than us. In fact, most of us would accept the richest 1% running the world – if they were benevolent. But that is so obviously not the case – and addiction to money is the key issue here. The super-greedy-rich are treating our economy like a Ponzi scheme casino. Collectively, they simply don't care about anything or anyone else.

The super-greedy have the power to pillage, to subvert democracies, and to eventually create a Hell on Earth. But they just don't seem to have the power to fix things. The reality is they only care about money.

We need to figure out a way to make them care about what really matters... before the consequences of their actions come back to hurt (or even kill) us all.

We need to figure out a better system.

What would that system look like?

• It would still have the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
• It would include provisions of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• It would include provisions of the Declaration on Principles of International Law Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
• It would have much more direct democracy.
• It would have to have at least one public news outlet not controlled by the wealthy.
• Its economy would be more focused on sustainability than growth.
• Its most powerful people would be more focused on personal happiness than oppressing others.
• And there would likely be an additional reward system that gives people status outside of the monetary system.

And if we don't fix things?

America will continue to become more and more of a banana republic.

There will still be the super-greedy-rich, but they will be hiding away behind walled and gated communities so that they won't be attacked or kidnapped. Their air will be polluted. Their food will be tainted. Their travel will be restricted to only other walled communities. They will see hate in the eyes of everyone who isn't rich. And their happiness will be far from maximized. But they'll still be maximizing their profits at the expense of others – and life on Earth. Of course, this will only be a temporary situation.

Sooner or later, the cost of taking things is higher than the value of what you want to take.

...This is what eventually happened to Adolph Hitler. 
         the cost of taking over the Soviet Union wasn't worth the loss of Nazi troops. 
...This is what eventually will happen to the Tea Party.
         the cost of shutting down the government isn't worth the loss of our economy. 

...This is what is now happening to our Environment. 
         the cost of looting the Earth isn't worth living in a wasted dump.  

Don't Be Fooled by the Watergrab Sticker Price

For years, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) has been telling you that the Watergrab will “only” cost $3,500,000,000. But, when legally bound to tell the truth; SNWA (in writing) told the Nevada State Engineer $15,000,000,000. And even then, SNWA left out cost overruns and the huge cost of energy to pump water across the State of Nevada!

This is what as known as creative accounting. Think of it like buying a car. The true cost of the car is much higher than the sticker price. $3,500,000,000 is the sticker price. $7,500,000,000 is the is the price with all the added features. $15,000,000,000 is the price with finance costs. $20,000,000,000 is the price with cost overruns (typically SNWA projects have had 30% cost overruns). And then, of course; there are still maintenance and fuel costs.

What does this mean to you?

The math is simple: 20 billion dollars spread out over 2 million people (the population of Southern Nevada SNWA customers) equals $10,000 for every man, woman, and child – before we talk about maintenance and operation costs.

For a family of 4 that means $40,000 – spread out in payments over approximately 40 years – about $1,000 a year – or almost $100 a month. Add the electric bill for pumping the water up to 300 miles, and a family of four will probably pay over $100 a month more for the Watergrab for the rest of the adults' lives.

But wait... you already have plenty of water... Just check your tap. Last year the Bureau of Reclamation posted that Nevada only used 237 thousand acre feet of Colorado River water (net). Nevada's allotment is 300 thousand acre feet. Which means, at Southern Nevada's present population, there is plenty of water – even if there were imposed restrictions.

Which means: the Watergrab is for growth.

Now you may still believe in the exponential growth Ponzi scheme, but are you willing to pay $100 dollars a month for water for other people?

And what if Southern Nevada ceases to grow? We saw what happened to Las Vegas when the financial crisis hit. We know that present banking regulations aren't enough to avoid another banking crisis. We know that the price of gas will continue to rise (because deeper water drilling, dirtier tar sands, and more difficult fracking are just getting more expensive). There is a real risk that Las Vegas could grow for a while and then contract – which would leave Southern Nevada residents with a huge bill for a boondoggle.

So, what's Southern Nevada to do? Save Central Nevada's water for when you really need it. Until then, get developers etc. to foot the bill themselves for desalination facilities off the coast of California in exchange for a bigger allotment of the Colorado River.

Elysium Movie Review and Predictions of the Future

 

Someone once said that science fiction is never really about the future – because we can never really place ourselves in the mindset of the future. That's OK with me. The best science fiction, in my opinion; pictures a future that relates to issues of the present – extrapolating issues of today into a credible vision of the future – however unexpected.

The movie Elysium has created a very credible story line by focusing on present issues such as resource depletion, wealth concentration, technological attempts to avoid fixing social issues, a culture of corruption, and the continued oppression of indigenous peoples.

I recommend the movie – just for the conversations it will start.

Unfortunately, the Hollywood feel-good ending didn't feel all that plausible. (Long ago, Hollywood realized that sad endings don't sell tickets.) So, I guess it's the responsibility of us bloggers to consider more plausible endings.

...But first; the Elysium satellite concept seems like a great idea! If I were a billionaire, I would want them to start working on this right away. In fact, I would buy a few congressmen to pass bills authorizing NASA and various private contractors to start working on a “space colonization” project – at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. (Hey, I'd rather see NASA get the money than Homeland Security.)

Just check out this link to the (fictional) Elysium satellite. It's the ultimate gated community! It's the green zone in the heavens! But more importantly; it's an opportunity for humanity to keep our eggs in more than one basket. Space colonization is human species life insurance.

Even if only the super-rich get to live there, at least someone has a chance at life if all of the rest of us face extinction.

But wouldn't something like this be grossly unfair? Aren't many among these super-rich the very people responsible for exploiting the planet to the point of mass extinctions? Well, yes...

Which leads me to my point. There may be some very rich people right now who think they can be insulated from the consequences of a total Environmental collapse. Apparently, they must believe this – because their actions imply they don't care whether or not they cause an Environmental collapse. Of course, most likely they've deluded themselves (as most of us have) into believing their actions don't matter enough to see a need to change.

Humanity's callus and selfish actions have led us to the brink of our own extinction. The combined threats of nuclear war, chemical war, biological war, massive polluting, climate change, resource depletion, and overpopulation have pushed life on Earth to an extinction event as big as that which saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. We know this. It is already happening. And yet, like obsessively continuing to pull on a thread of a sweater, we continue to risk the total oblivion of the unraveling of nature. And why? To satisfy our man-made goals.

For example; the fossil fuel industries keep on selling poisons so that they can keep their stock prices up. Now after peak oil, they've figured out more dangerous ways to keep their cash flow in the billions. No one can deny that fracking is essentially poisoning our water in order to poison our air. But somehow, this makes sense in their (all that matters is cash flow) minds. For the past thirty years, the fossil fuel industry has done everything they can (including corrupt our democracy) to hold back renewable industries. Why? Because they perceive renewables as competition. The fossil fuel industries could have just bought into renewables – but no... the profits weren't as high. And why weren't the profits as high? Because they had corrupted our regulation systems to allow them to get away with polluting (poisoning) everything with impunity.

...And these are the people who could afford to buy a spot on the Elysium satellite.

Which brings up a point brought forth in the Elysium movie; one can never create a utopia if we fill it with evil people.

Of course, we don't actually have to build an Elysium satellite. We could try to create a utopia right here on Earth. Well... at least we could try. But I guess that's what those fossil fuel millionaires and billionaires must think they are trying to do for themselves. They've created gated community green zones that look idyllic from a distance, but don't really make the inhabitants that much happier. And to finance their gated communities, they've poisoned the air, the water, everyone's food, and each other. Oops...

On the other hand; even if we all were to switch to renewable energy, organic farming, clean industries, and all the sustainable habits – it may not be enough. There are seven billion of us on the planet, and our population continues to rise.

Ask any biologist; is this normal? NO! Every natural population finds an equilibrium in nature at which its population fluctuates sustainably. I'll use the hare and the lynx as an example: 

 

As you can see in the chart, natural populations fluctuate about a steady state. This makes sense, because our environment only has so many limited resources.

Now look at human population: 

 

This graph shows what is known as exponential growth – which is blatantly unsustainable. Note that wars, birth control, and AIDS have all barely made a dent in this exponential growth.

Evolution has given us a gift – which can also be a curse. Our population can rise precipitously to fill a void (such as when entering a new environment or after a major disease). But this propensity to grow has serious drawbacks humanity has yet to deal with.

Many scientists have predicted that eventually this exponential growth will level off – and that humanity will find a new steady-state population:

This, of course, is the best-case scenario. But unfortunately, it doesn't take into account human resourcefulness. People don't just stop having babies. People don't just give up on growing more food. People don't just stop eating when their traditional foods are gone. Humans survive because we have found ways to alter our habits and our environment. Which means that, for a while, we have figured out how to live beyond our natural carrying capacity. That's good news for us now, but terrifying news for us in the long run:

The reason we have so much to fear is we don't know what our carrying capacity actually is (or could be). In our natural state, humanity's carrying capacity was significantly less than a billion people. Which means we can't go back to our natural state. We have to rely on technology. But much of that technology is now polluting and using up resources. One would have to be brain-dead not to see that humanity has been systematically borrowing from the future to sustain our unsustainable lifestyle. One could even argue that humanity's whole exploitative economic system is a huge Ponzi scheme – on the verge of collapse.

In the last graph, consumption overshoot left the population with less in the long run. Which leads to the question: What if we overshoot our environmental carrying capacity so much that we drain our degraded carrying capacity to zero?

The concept is simple; a species grows exponentially in a finite environment until it eats all the food or somehow changes the environment to the point that the species can no longer survive in it.

Convincing examples of population collapses do exist:

• Yeast in a wine container
• a reindeer population collapse on a remote island
• Easter Island and its human population collapse
• The Most Important Video You Will Ever See

Without some new technological fix to increase the world's carrying capacity, it would mean humanity's extinction.

...which is why scientists are trying to develop poo burgers.

In the not too distant future, that may be all that's left to eat.

Moreover, the sad truth is that because of humanity's consumption overshoot, we may not have time to build an Elysium satellite.

Recent news includes:

• Asia has had to endure record heat, flooding, and a super typhoon.
• Water leaks at Fukushima could contaminate the entire Pacific Ocean.
• Wild bees are in even worse shape than domesticated bees.
• A major permafrost methane release is almost inevitable.
• Namibia is in the middle of the worst drought in 30 years.
• Ocean acidity has been so effected by carbon dioxide that the oceans may be near a tipping point in which calcium in shells etc. may disintegrate and thus upset entire ocean ecosystems.
• Africa's Black Rhino is now officially extinct.
• Scientists estimate that 27,000 species are going extinct every year (vs. 100 in the average fossil record).

All I can say about this is; get used to it.

Humanity has already set in motion all of the events just mentioned – and much more.

If you're not scared, you don't have a clue.

Which is why I expected a different ending to the Elysium movie.

There may come a day when someone has the biological expertise to develop a disease that could kill 90% of us.

You may remember the movie 12 Monkeys. In this film, one person, that's right, one person sets in motion a disease that kills most human life on the planet. By the time we have the technology to put rich people in communities in space, the technology to create mass killing diseases will likely also exist. Which means that if the residents of an Elysium satellite ever feel threatened, someone might launch a pandemic.

Of course, if the technology to kill off all of their human competition were to be developed before an Elysium satellite; there wouldn't really be a need for an Elysium satellite.

What if some evil drug company invented both a humanity killing disease and a vaccination to prevent it? They could launch the disease and sell the vaccination. They could rid the world of all those poor people (in their way) and get rich doing it. Consider this; if they had a billion vaccines and they sold them for $10,000 a dose, that would make them ten trillion dollars! The temptation is frightening. Moreover, the results are arguably better than letting nature take its course (with a starving humanity bush-meating the planet). After a disease purge; the world would no longer be overpopulated with people, the drug company would be the richest people on the planet, and they could essentially create an Elysium right here on Earth. If there is a Dr. Evil, this would be at the top of his to-do list. But on the other hand, it still beats humanity's extinction (along with most of the higher forms of life on the planet).

So, there we have it.

Our choices are to:

1. continue on the course we have set for ourselves and virtually guarantee our extinction (along with most higher forms of life on Earth).
2. get our act together and develop a sustainable world economy, a fair worldwide democracy, a responsible research and development system, a stable population, and still risk extinction.
3. try to build a space colony away from all the strife – knowing that there is no way we can keep up with humanity's exponential population growth and these space colonies will end up even more cutthroat than now (because of who will man it).
4. create a disease that will sterilize us all – even though we suspect that the present population is already well over our planet's carrying capacity.
5. create a bio-weapon that would kill off 90% of the human population without damaging the environment – knowing that the biggest exploiters, polluters, etc. will be those still alive.
6. strive for technological “miracles” to save us for a while longer – knowing that the more our population rises, the worse the fall will ultimately be.

My point: in creating our present world, we have made our future options quite ugly. The movie Elysium, when considering these options, seems rather like a best case scenario – even for the poor stuck on Earth without jobs or health care. At least the rich hadn't killed them off.

Information Dominance, Michael Hastings, and Rolling Stone

We once thought propaganda was the ultimate form of organized lies and manipulation. But one facet of Information Dominance goes the next step.

For the most part, it appears that the military's broad concept of Information Dominance refers to cyber-warfare, which we would expect there is a need. However, Information Dominance can also be interpreted as dominating our information systems with overwhelming propaganda on almost every channel, every radio station, every newspaper, every magazine, and eventually, every website. Ultimately, the dark side of Information Dominance gives most people no real option to learn the truth.

China is best known for attempting to dominate all information available. But the desire for excessive power exists everywhere. And the desire to lie for personal gain is far too common everywhere. Here in America; there are frauds (who, ironically, enthusiastically call themselves “patriots”) who are working on dominating our information systems in more surreptitious ways than China.

Examples?

Let's start with the Army manual titled Inform Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. In this manual, the Army includes in its definition of Information Operations; “the employment of... psychological operations... to influence decision making.”

Apparently, this is mainstream U.S. military doctrine. And Information Dominance is the goal. But included in Information Dominance is the control the minds of enough people such that dissent is insignificant.

And they're not just talking about enemy combatants here. This applies to propaganda and news here in America also.

Achieving Information Dominance involves 1) building up and protecting friendly information and 2) denying, degrading, and destroying unfriendly capabilities.

We saw the worst of this back when American military forces attacked Al Jazeera offices in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In spite of what Fox “News” may have led you to believe, Al Jazeera is not a terrorist organization. In fact, it is arguable that Al Jazeera is a much more accurate world news source than Fox “News.” Al Jazeera simply has far more journalists in the field – and they don't have to rely on advertisers' dollars.

In 2001, U.S. military forces attacked and destroyed Al Jazeera offices in Kabul, Afghanistan. And in 2003, U.S. Military forces attacked and destroyed Al Jazeera offices in Basra and Baghdad, Iraq. In the Baghdad attack, an Al Jazeera journalist was killed.

 

Why? The answer is obvious. To prevent Al Jazeera from reporting the wars.

Why? Apparently; Information Dominance.

Evidently; America's military organizations are now willing to kill journalists so that our propaganda will dominate the airwaves... This is not a conspiracy theory. This is history.

But that's just likely the tip of the iceberg – and the beginning of the conspiracy theory. What about all those alphabet soup of American “Intelligence” Agencies? We don't get to read their manuals. In fact, most everything they do is classified – often just to keep secrets from Americans. Could the CIA be killing journalists who don't report what the “Intelligence” Agencies want us to hear?

As far as I know, worldwide, journalists aren't dropping like flies so that American propaganda can dominate the airwaves. But they don't have to. A few critical “hits” and all journalists would know what not to report on – or else.

Which brings us to the suspicious story of Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone.

Micheal Hastings was a journalist and contributing editor of Rolling Stone magazine.

Rolling Stone magazine was one of the only alternative news publications people could find on the magazine racks in grocery stores in suburban and rural America. Which means ordinary Americans (who don't have access to internet news) just might happen to read some of Micheal Hastings' articles. And there were many.

Back in 2010, Micheal Hastings wrote an article for Rolling Stone that depicted General Stanley McChrystal in such a bad light that it prompted President Obama to fire him. By not backing down from the truth to keep a privileged reporting assignment, Micheal Hastings clearly was not willing to participate in Information Operations. In fact, the concept of Information Dominance would definitely put him on the side of the adversaries.

In 2011, Micheal Hastings wrote an article for Rolling Stone that exposed a U.S. Army team specializing in “psychological operations” attempting to manipulate visiting U.S. Senators. In this instance; Micheal Hastings was brave enough to expose illegal efforts at Information Dominance.

Micheal Hastings' last article; The Spy Who Cracked Up In The Cold, was about a CIA agent who went rogue – and ended up in prison (an extremely rare event for CIA operatives). The article was not a fluff piece, and it did not portray the CIA in a good light.

There are a number of stories online that claim that Micheal Hastings' next story was also about the CIA. Apparently, his last email stated; “the Feds are interviewing my “close friends and associates”... Also, I'm onto a big story, and need to go off the radar for a bit.” The very next morning, 15 hours later, he was killed in an abnormally fiery single-car accident.

Witnesses claim Micheal Hastings' car was driving very erratically – speeding, running a red light, etc. Yet Micheal Hastings was known to drive “like a grandma” and hadn't drank alcohol in five years.

One witness even claimed that he heard two explosions before the crash.

And then after all of this, authorities have withheld information from the public – and cremated Micheal Hastings' body against the family's wishes.

Even Richard Clarke (who was once the Terrorism Czar for both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush – and the author of Against All Enemies) told Huffington Post that this single car crash was “consistent with a car cyber attack.” (For more information on how this hack might be done check out this Car and Driver article.)

The Los Angeles Police Department does not suspect foul play. However, Richard Clarke said the Los Angeles Police Department likely wouldn't have the expertise to trace such an attack.

We may never know for sure if this was or was not an assassination.

Most likely, we will never know what Micheal Hastings was investigating.

But we do know that the mass media news, just a couple of weeks later, attacked Rolling Stone magazine over an insignificant matter – the picture of a Boston Marathon bomber on the cover. This blatantly contrived controversy led to CVS, Walgreens, Stop & Shop, and Rite Aid pulling Rolling Stone magazine from their shelves.

The question that begs to be asked is; what if these two “hits” are related?

If one were to look at these events together through the lens of Information Dominance, they would appear like a coordinated attack on an adversarial information source. Could Micheal Hastings have been assassinated to hide the truth, and Rolling Stone attacked to assure no one ever investigates again?

If so; who would have the expertise to technically hack into someone's car and the political power to news hack into the mass media? I doubt rogue agents would have that kind of power. I doubt a foreign intelligence agency would have that kind of power. Which leads us to suspect “official” power – our secret government.

Micheal Hastings said he was “onto a big story” and that he would have to “go off the radar for a bit.” But apparently, the radar had already locked onto him. The consequences are we never got to read his report and we may loose easy access to the publication that has provided this type of information... The harsh reality is the First Amendment doesn't matter to this reporter if he's dead and his magazine has been banned.

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg went to the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers. But nowadays; Edward Snowden felt he had to go to the British publication The Guardian and Bradley Manning felt he had to go to Wikileaks. This, along with the apparent attempt to shut out Rolling Stone, suggest the age of Information Dominance has quietly superseded our Constitutional right to freedom of the press.

And all the while, “our” government keeps trying to take over the Internet.

...One more thing: If someone can hack a car, maybe they can hack a plane. This might shed some light into the suspicious plane crash death of Senator Paul Wellstone and his family (and Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan in a separate plane crash).

This Is How They Manipulate You

I just ordered a subscription to Rolling Stone magazine. You see, I can't find it on the store shelves any more. The mainstream (for profit) news media has manufactured a quasi-outrage that led to the pulling of this more honest journal of news. The way I see it, this has nothing to do with idolizing some terrorist. They're trying to kill the competition – and control what you know.

Because if they can exclusively control what you know, they can control you. 

 

But you're not feeling manipulated. Right?... Good. It's working. Every year they get more and more sophisticated. But even so, the (for profit) news media usually only resorts to a few types of dirty tricks. Here are a few examples:

Just recently, Ex-President Jimmy Carter exclaimed to the world; “America does not at the moment have a functioning democracy.”

Now, that's big news. All of the talking heads on all of television combined do not carry the weight of credibility of an ex-president when criticizing our government. In all of my lifetime, I have never heard an ex-president say something so shocking. So, how did the (for profit) news media report such a bold and important statement? They didn't.

That's right. An ex-president proclaims that America does not have a functioning democracy and somehow it never got reported by the American press.

Now why wouldn't they report something as important as that? If you live in America, you probably already know the answer. Because the (for profit) news media is part of the problem.

And that problem is screaming at you every time you watch “for profit” news. Who's screaming? Advertisers. Follow the money. There is a seemingly endless stream of ads from fossil fuel companies, big pharma, big banks, etc. It is blatantly obvious that this constant steam of millions of dollars influences what (for profit) news media reports on – and of course, what they leave out.

I'm not claiming that it's all lies. Most of what they say is true. And of course, some of the best journalists in the world work for “for profit” news. But those who own these “for profit” news companies have their own agenda. They're in business to make profits, not to tell you the whole truth. And their advertisers; well, it's obvious they're trying to influence your opinion. They wouldn't spend all that money on advertising if it didn't work.

Consequently, the (for profit) mass media owns a piece of your mind – if you let them. And if you watch them, you will let them.

Even if they cannot change your mind, they will still get you to pay attention to what they want you to think about – and consequently ignore what they don't want you to think about.

However, not all “for profit” news broadcasters and publishers are created equal. Some news organizations don't feed off the advertising dollars of the big monopolies. The magazine Rolling Stone is one such publication. And in the past few years, Rolling Stone has published a number of far more accurate and in depth articles than the mainstream “for profit” news organizations.

Examples:

2009 – Matt Taibbi's article on how banksters manipulate economic bubbles (with the unforgettable quote about Goldman Sachs; “the great vampire squid around the face of humanity”)

2010 – Michael Hastings' article on General Stanley McChrystal (that ultimately led to the General's resignation)

2012 – Bill McKibben's article “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math”

2012 – Matt Taibbi's article on Mitt Romney (which got Rolling Stone pulled from shelves here in Ely, NV)

2012 – Douglas Brinkley's interview with President Obama

2013 – Antonia Juhaz's article on big oils' lies about renewable energy

2013 – Ryan Devereaux's article on the demands of the California prison hunger strikers

...and, of course, the recent article on the Boston Marathon bomber with the “glamorous” picture of Dzhokar Tsarnaev on the cover

Now let's think about this...

A magazine that has been able to skirt the usual limitations of having to financially support itself with illicit hush money (in the form of advertising revenue) has been for years achieving far better reporting than the “for big bucks any way you can get it” talking heads. And people are starting to take notice.

One might expect that the (for profit) mass media just might see this as a threat. They could lose viewers. They could lose advertising money. They could lose their jobs... They might even be forced to actually report more “fair and balanced.”

Ultimately, the (for profit) mass media might even consider more honest publications such as Rolling Stone as the enemy.

So, Rolling Stone publishes this article on the younger Boston Marathon bomber. It's a great article. In fact, it is iconoclastic. It was a revelation that none of this young man's friends, teachers, coaches or even parents had a clue that he would soon be a terrorist. Before the bombing, none of them saw him as a psycho killer.

This Janet Reitman article reminds us that seemingly normal people sometimes have the capacity for bizarre bloody violence. Nonetheless, “Jafar” – as his friends called him, was for most of his life, the person we see on the cover.

Which means; the cover photo makes sense in the telling of the story.

And this very same picture was used on the cover of The New York Times – without complaints.

But the reports on television “news” are that there is this huge uprising of outrage – before the issue even gets published. Every channel is covering this semi-scandal – not just once, but repeatedly.

This was silly. Worst case scenario; the Rolling Stone publishers used bad taste. That's it. But there they were; all ganging up on Rolling Stone magazine. They were creating a scandal from the way they were reporting it. And in the end, a number of retailers pulled the magazine from their shelves. Effectively, television “news” conducted a hit.

Obviously, somebody or some group has been hunting in every issue of Rolling Stone for some potential scandal to report on. And then, like a tail wagging a dog; their reporting on the “scandal” creates a scandal. And then; the schemers can revel in the knowledge that they cut off Rolling Stone's newsstand income stream.

These people fight dirty.

So, I've decided to fight back.

I've ordered a subscription of Rolling Stone.

I've decided that I support the truth.

And if television “news” continues to attack the truth, I will watch less and less of it.

…need more examples?

OK:

Dan Rather used to be the most powerful journalist in television news. 60 Minutes has been one of the most respected news programs on television. When Dan Rather reported on 60 Minutes that President George W. Bush had a very questionable military record – that may have included (privileged) draft evasion and even (privileged) desertion, the “for profit” mass media went after him like wild hyenas. They never mentioned any of Dan Rather's points. And they never mentioned any of the evidence other than one questionable document. I saw this report. I believe it deserved an award. Like all 60 Minutes reports, it lasted from 15 to 20 minutes. This one questionable document was on screen for less than 10 seconds. But the (for profit) “news” media, in a coordinated fashion, ignored everything else and went in for the kill over that one document. It ruined Dan Rather's career, and truth never again saw the light of day.

Howard Dean's whoop during the Democratic primary.

Howard Dean was a liberal candidate who had briefly taken the lead during the 2004 Presidential primaries. However, he placed 3^rd in Iowa. Afterwards; he let out one whoop in a crowd of enthusiastic screaming supporters. The television media also jumped on this like like a pack of wild hyenas. The (for profit) mass media television “news” knew that the clip was not an accurate reproduction of the actual audio in the room. Because of a directional microphone, it sounded like Howard Dean was screaming to the crowd by himself. Nonetheless, they played it over and over again without a disclaimer. This clip shows the full “incident,” but by far, most of the news clips were just a two second clip of him screaming.

…

Every television “news” organization showed it over and over again until just enough people perceived Howard Dean as a screaming idiot – and he lost his running in the election. I'm convinced this wasn't an accident. It had all the markings of a politically motivated “hit.” An effort like this had to be coordinated amongst all the television news organizations. And, of course; we can surmise that if it had been a corporatist candidate, this minor incident never would have been reported on. What's worse; coordinated “news” altered truth (half-lies) like this happen in every Presidential election. (Check out the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the misquote of Al Gore; “I invented the Internet,” and Willie Horton.)

One more example – the rainbow flag. Everybody now perceives the rainbow flag as a symbol of gay pride. But gays didn't choose this symbol. It was originally a symbol of the Rainbow Coalition. The Rainbow Coalition was formed by Rev. Jesse Jackson, once Martin Luther King's right hand man. The Rev. Jackson's goal was to create a political organization that included everyone who had been marginalized by the U.S. political system. This included gays. So, every time there was a Gay Pride parade somewhere, somebody brought a rainbow flag. The mass media news picked up on this. And every time there was a gay event, the mass media showed a picture of a rainbow flag. By now, we consider a rainbow flag to mean nothing like it's original intent. I find it impossible to believe this wasn't planned, coordinated, and executed without some kind of mass media conspiracy.

Those in power don't want to share that power.

Those in power own the mass media.

Those in power advertise on the mass media.

Since there are essentially no limits on what the mass media can do, we must expect them to abuse their power. We cannot trust them.

This type of reporting hasn't just been directed towards liberal organizations. Militias have been portrayed as a bunch of white supremacists. Anyone who points out a possible conspiracy has been portrayed as paranoid. Environmentalists have been portrayed as bleeding heart wimps. The internet has been portrayed as full of lies. And now; Neighborhood Watch has been portrayed as a bunch of trigger happy fools (though, admittedly, that's exactly what George Zimmerman was).

This is how they keep us disorganized.

Not that there isn't some element of truth to these mass media portrayals. That's what makes them so effective. They find some truth and blow it totally out of proportion. The citizens of America are being manipulated. Think about it; these silly “news” reports always seem to benefit the oligarchy... how convenient.

But these efforts to keep us weak pale in comparison to the (for profit) mass media's most effective tool; distraction. Distraction is a weapon. While they got us all worked up about Travon Martin, etc; they're quietly taking away many Americans' opportunity to vote. It's been years since Americans lost our faith in electronic voting. Gerrymandering is common. Poling places in poor neighborhoods have required hours of waiting. And efforts to exclude the poor, the young, the old, and people of color from elections have become common. What's worse; the “Supreme” Court apparently supports this.

With the Citizens United case (and the striking down of most every other law that was enacted to control campaign spending), our supremely corrupt Supreme Court has given big corporations unlimited power to influence what was once a democratic process. And now, with the shutting down of the Voting Rights Act; they have decided that election protections for the poor and the brown aren't necessary anymore.

Essentially, the Supreme Court considers corporations people and Democrats not people.

No wonder former President Jimmy Carter said; ““America does not at the moment have a functioning democracy.”

(...Oh, one more thing. A Federal Appeals Court has just ruled that the First Amendment does not fully protect investigative journalists.)