These kinds of events shouldn’t be shocking to anyone following Canada’s recent infatuation with authoritarian behavior; after all it was only this past February when Vancouver police got their turn at erecting a police state in their city center. It was during that repugnant spectacle that Canadian border officials detained Amy Goodman on her way to give a talk at the Vancouver Public Library, on suspicion that she might address the human rights violations involved with hosting these Caligula-like games.

Unfortunately, these mounting attacks on civil liberties, hatred of leftist politics, so on and so forth, have the unfortunate side affect of burying equally troubling, albeit less showy, behavior by the Canadian government. One such example is Canada’s recent purchase of advertising in the June 28th issue of The New Yorker. Every single ad in the issue was of some Canadian origin, be it the government of Quebec, the government of Alberta, or the most disturbing ones taken out by the Federal government. The theme of their ads in particular express a corporate fetishism that would make the Fraser Institute blush. One egregious example was the following³:

So there you have it- “world-class cultural activities”, “Universal health care”, “A pristine environment” and a meaningful sense of community- all of these things are bargaining chips for the Neoliberal plutocrats of the globe, or as the Federal Government of Canada would like to put it:

A GREAT PLACE TO DO BUSINESS

Phrases like “pristine natural environment” serve merely to remind the global capitalists that there are plenty of untapped resources ready to the raped from the earth. “Safe streets”? The G8 illustrates what I might call the safest streets on the planet- they’re empty and guarded by helicopter flyovers and various high-tech weapons. “People-friendly communities”? Canada will do its best to crush meaningful political discourse, and if possible, ethnically cleanse all urban centers of offending displays of multiculturalism, such as demonstrations by indigenous peoples groups.
As for the “Universal health care” remark? Well what monolithic corporation wouldn’t like to do business in a country whose government will treat the cancer, birth defects, and general despair caused by archetypal corporate practices? After all, the province of Alberta is conceivably well on its way to sharing the realities of the Gulf Coast. The Tar Sands show no sign of slowing, and the ecological holocaust taking place there will have long term impacts on human and animal populations that no one can adequately predict.

The picture that emerges is one where Canada seems unwilling to let America “out-do” their own establishment of a well-oiled corporate state. Canada’s behavior during the G8/G20 offers us only confirmation that Canada’s global role is becoming that of a territorial-analog to the already corporatized, already proto-fascistic authority infrastructure of the United States. It’s old hat to comment on the lack of cultural differentiation between American and Canadian populations at this point in time, but we should nevertheless be prepared to acknowledge how this will affect the prospects of resistance in the coming years. This uniformity in culture only means a greater need for cooperation in said resistance, and the intertwined nature of the conflict itself. A glimpse of how the global Neoliberal elite intend to carry themselves, such as the G8/G20, should serve to illustrate the severity of the coming struggle for any kind of social justice.

Ah, but for the time being, Canadians can enjoy an exceptional quality of life that will take your breath away. Except for those being turned into red mist in Afghanistan for no explicable reason.

We as students all voluntarily grasp the handle leading us into a morass of relativism, where the justifications of self-interested abandon are rewarded, ludic fallacies abound, and attitudes of compliance artfully color the reasoning capacity of the initiated. We do so voluntarily, often thinking we are in full control of the outcomes, while much like the children in the park we wander aimlessly along our carefully orchestrated journey into the maw of market paradigms and heedless economism. The purpose of “College” seems hyper-focused around a singular goal: getting a job. Not even the Arts or Humanities are free from this framing, with the objectives of completing a degree now being about attaining financial stability and eliciting pleased reactions from future employers. Whether the goal is to eventually teach at a university, play in an orchestra, or produce something someone will “buy,” passion for the very subject matter of one’s “Profession” (after all, professionalization is what this trend is actualizing) let alone an honest intellectual appeal to one’s own passion, becomes subordinate to the forces of capitalist demand.
This market infiltration of education is guilty of not only undermining the nature of critical thought, but also of reinforcing the reification of the Market as an elemental and therefore natural force. “You must make everything that is yours saleable, i.e., useful”. ¹

This may be the result of a peculiar social norm in the affluent classes of North America, where young people are rarely engaged in supporting any kind of personal/familial livelihood. They exhibit instead a profound dependence on the accrued wealth of their parents to eat, remain housed, consume, etc. As a result, their conception of personal productivity (in a Marxist sense) becomes so strongly enmeshed with their schooling that this very scholasticism takes on the role of Labor in their lives. Education becomes Labor, and given the pervasive economisom, the ‘Student’ becomes Alienated from their labor; Alienation from Learning.

This is accomplished in that said ‘Student’ cannot freely determine the aims and goals of their activities (what/when/how to learn). This is not an assault on teaching or instruction per se, but merely an attempt to point out the gross inadequacy that lies in the current hierarchical model, in which the ‘Student’ is prevented from following a particular line of thought through its relevant, just, and logical path. To do so requires a particular freedom of ‘movement’ that cannot occur when boundaries of length, format, and the all too unfortunate term, ‘topic,’ are established and reified. This atmosphere of professionalization and specialization, generated by an emphasis on ‘majors’ and ‘areas of expertise’ leads us to a perpetual ‘Ptolemization’ where a given field conjures increasingly complicated ways of describing a world in constant flux. History is nothing if not proof that revolutionary ideas emerge through the critique and disestablishment of petrified conceptions.

What is required to generate these revolutionary ideas is not simply a vilifying hatred for these established conceptions, but something infinitely more creative. A purely negative critique is insufficient, but a positive one- one that affirms the ‘human universality’ of the very field itself (be it the arts, the humanities, etc.)- is what is necessary, call it a Positive Negation. This return to the importance of the field itself as an integral part of humanity’s universality, would reinvigorate a societal interest in creating civilization (an interest totally discarded when an individual’s participation in any field is governed only by self-interest).

An entire generation carefully groomed with techniques of rote learning and standardized evaluations embody not some great educated collective, but an Alienated, anti-intellectual swarm of selfish drones. With the motivation to obtain a degree lying only in the realm of satisfying one’s economic self-interest, we can expect an even further degradation of our social reality- our civilization. Now that every component of a student’s productive capacities are relegated to developing work qua commodity, I find very cause for hope.
When a group of college graduates celebrates with bombastic applause with no mention of the possible Extinction Level Event ongoing in the gulf of mexico, there is cause for alarm. When a group of recent graduates holds a ceremony of self-congratulatory aplomb while fascist populism surges through the country, there is cause for alarm. When these graduates spout narcissistic assertions of achievement because they are closer to some kind of “gainful employment”, it is difficult not to weep.

What, dear graduates, are you celebrating?

Yes, you read correctly, I referred to the offending individuals as a collective ‘these people’, and there is a hard intention behind that. They are the genesis of a mass movement, a movement that has been gradually shaped and molded over the decades, a movement that has emerged from its adolescence with a hunger for violence.

The brains behind this movement lie in many hands, be they the practitioners of free market extremism, promulgators of the many systemic-industrial complexes, or proselytists of religious fundamentalism, but they all require the aid of the malleable. This is where the birthers, the deathers, and the tea-baggers come into the picture. The necessity of an angry mob, a collection of cognitively deficient pawns with which to direct as per your bidding, has always been necessary for those wishing to overthrow a regime of some kind. The one thing that needs to come about, however, is both a consolidation of message and the establishment of some kind of leadership, no matter how anti-establishment these people claim to be. Thus far we seem to be seeing a loose association of individuals with disparate objections, ranging anywhere from the anti-federal government, anti-tax lunatics to the viciously racist militiamen. Indeed, what seems clear at the moment is that no such consolidation seems to have happened, and frankly, it is often impossible to discern a decisive message with a great many of town-hall disruptions. Even a casual dip into Wikipedia reveals that the Sturmabteilung didn’t exactly coalesce into the kind of organization we associate with the term until 1922, by which point both the German Workers Party and the structureless pugilists had reconfigured into the NSDAP. Any further reading on Hitler’s rise to power, or any totalitarian regime for that matters, suggests the same, that consolidation of interests enables the success of a rise to power¹.

If it weren’t for disturbing trends that suggest such a cohesion is just around the corner, I might consider relaxing. Finding myself at teapartypatriots.org brought a little phrase back into my vocabulary, lost in the din of the town hall psychopaths: The 9-12 Project. Looking at the extensive list of ‘Tea Party Patriot Groups’, a.k.a. angry white idiot douchebags, the term ‘9-12’ appears more times than I am comfortable with. In case you’re still unconcerned, the The 9-12 Project is one of Glenn Beck’s masturbatory experiments in delusion that first came to my attention in March. In case you’re still vacillating on the connectivity here, I think it’s safe to say that the 9-12 project is precisely the coalescent meme necessary to bring about the dreaded consolidation. Given that Glenn Beck’s latest book, Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine (shazail!) has been on the New York Times non-fiction best sellers list for weeks², and knowing that the book ends with instructions on how to organize a 9-12 ‘club’ of your very own, my unwillingness to calm down is not a result of my own superfluous anxieties, but an objection to the unfolding of ensuing darkness.
Take a quick peek at the 9 Principles, and tell me you aren’t disturbed given specific trends in American Society (as written about here by friend of the site, Samantha Fingerhut).

1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson³

The sun is truly setting. Brace yourselves.

In his latest film—it can’t be called a movie because virtually nothing moves, neither the camera nor what it is photographing — Mr. Straub has come close to purging the screen of anything to see. At the same time, he will come close to purging the movie theater of anybody to watch.¹

Enjoy.

Two things of late have demanded a certain reflection on this matter. The first of which is the John Pilger compilation of investigative journalism pieces, Tell Me No Lies³. As I continue working my way through this book I am made aware of the ignominious quality of the journalism that totally comprises the mainstream today, and also of how devastating this is to our contemporary understanding of history. Be it the Martha Gellhorn piece Dachau that opens the anthology, to James Cameron’s The Atomic Plague, to Pilger’s own Year Zero, each lengthy account of the most confident investigative reporting reads like an account of some mythical time period, a modern day Atlantis legend where reporters went about writing in detail about matters that actually affect humanity. How we have not collectively shaped our outrage into action regarding the state of the current 4th estate should deeply shame each and every one of us.
The second thing that has caused said reflection is the Glenn Greenwald article Celebrating Cronkite While Ignoring What He Did, (sent to me by none other than eb, a commenter on the site and contributor of sorts) from Salon. Greenwald discusses the dissociative nature of the mainstream media’s coverage of Cronkite’s death, by tying in his recollection of similar sentiments surrounding David Halberstam’s death two years ago. In both instances he claims that the media used these opportunities to equate their current practices with those of Cronkite or Halberstam. Based on my own observations, this is unequivocally the case.

Couric’s use of time on national newscast to cover the correction story, and to contextually imply that Cronkite would have carried himself with the same journalistic integrity as Couric in such an instance, inspires such thorough disgust in me that I cannot describe. Reportage of a New York Times correction is what passes as a hard-hitting scoop nowadays? Are you fucking kidding me? Couric’s soiree with the US Military back in 2007 was so jammed full of sugary-sweet mouthpiecery that I wept for my lack of dental coverage. For her to carry on like that about “…Getting it first, but getting it right…”⁴ is infantile and a violent affront to my intelligence.

Greenwald quotes extensively from an article by Lewis Lapham from September of ’08, regarding the death (and masturbatory media coverage) of Tim Russert who, unlike a Cronkite or a Halberstam, is not of the same journalistic ilk. I feel the following excerpt of Lapham’s piece could not be a more fitting way to close.

On television the voices of dissent can’t be counted upon to match the studio drapes or serve as tasteful lead-ins to the advertisements for Pantene Pro-V and the U.S. Marine Corps. What we now know as the “news media” serve at the pleasure of the corporate sponsor, their purpose not to tell truth to the powerful but to transmit lies to the powerless. Like Russert, who served his apprenticeship as an aide-de-camp to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, most of the prominent figures in the Washington press corps (among them George Stephanopoulos, Bob Woodward, and Karl Rove) began their careers as bagmen in the employ of a dissembling politician or a corrupt legislature. Regarding themselves as de facto members of government, enabling and codependent, their point of view is that of the country’s landlords, their practice equivalent to what is known among Wall Street stock-market touts as “securitizing the junk.” When requesting explanations from secretaries of defense or congressional committee chairmen, they do so with the understanding that any explanation will do. Explain to us, my captain, why the United States must go to war in Iraq, and we will relay the message to the American people in words of one or two syllables. Instruct us, Mr. Chairman, in the reasons why K-Street lobbyists produce the paper that Congress passes into law, and we will show that the reasons are healthy, wealthy, and wise. Do not be frightened by our pretending to be suspicious or scornful. Together with the television camera that sees but doesn’t think, we’re here to watch, to fall in with your whims and approve your injustices. Give us this day our daily bread, and we will hide your vices in the rosebushes of salacious gossip and clothe your crimes in the aura of inspirational anecdote⁵.

No. 1

As I urgently await the release of her new book (on topics similar to the ones discussed in the following article), I read Arundhati Roy’s critique of the democracy-free market synergism of our contemporary age.

No. 2

Truthdig’s marvelous Financial Meltdown 101 interface. Spend some time on here-
get lost a while.

No. 3

Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone piece about Goldman Sachs, The Great American Bubble Machine. I’m sure most of you are aware of this article by now, but it bears further mention. Sam Seder, in the final weeks of Break Room Live, interviewed Taibbi. I post this mostly to mourn the loss of Seder & Maron (yet again) from Air America Radio.

After reading Susan Jacboy’s The Age of American Unreason about a month ago, I was left sufficiently disturbed, enough to make several lifestyle changes, notably some serious distraction-mitigation from what she would call ‘video culture’. Her concept is not one easily summarized in brief because it refers both to technology (i.e. television, movies, computers, all screen interfaces) and behavior (i.e. constructs of importance surrounding said television shows, movies, games, etc). What was already very clear to me is that such media is now so ubiquitous, so thoroughly woven into our every day life, that to escape the oppressive forces of video culture distraction is a one-way ticket to loneliness of mind. Without respite, I can hear from the next room one of my roommates watching 6 hours of The O.C. one day, followed by 5 or 6 hours of Six Feet Under the next, followed by- you get the picture. Suspending my disbelief for a moment, let us presume we are talking about artful content (or more broadly speaking, something of craft and substance) in television media. Would it then by excusable to carry on one’s day in such a fashion? I don’t need the Jacoby to aid me in recognizing the psychological turpitude of being passively ‘engaged’ (if in fact it can be likened to engagement at all) for lengthy periods of time.

Is such a scenario a fair representation of the majority of society? The answer is yes. Absolutely without doubt. Our capitalistically predacious society makes sure that unless we are one of the sick sons-a-bitches who is able to rise to the top of the corporate oligarchy, we’re simply not going to have all that much free time on your hands. We will be working, hard, and when we are not working, we will be so physically and mentally and emotionally exhausted, we will want to forget the humiliation and dehumanization of the free market’s invisible hand wrapped tightly around our throats. And what better way to forget than to watch the screen(s) designed precisely for that purpose, so that when we do have extended free time, we not only want to “do nothing,” we have no idea how to do anything else. The down comforter of video culture is gloriously inviting, but it will smother and suck all that remains of our intellectual livelihood from our être (painfully performed by Alan Greenspan’s proboscis), and we will remain ignorant of it all.

Having long ago recognized the validity of Chomsky’s media theories (Manufacturing Consent et al.), I think a new component needs to be incorporated. It is clear we have demonstrable evidence that corporate media distorts, frames, omits, and occasionally fabricates information, but what is not clear is why there continues this stunning apathy when information about, say, the Honduras coup or the Saro Wiwa suit against Royal Dutch Shell is leaked through the protective corporate filter. It would be foolish not to acknowledge that a myriad of factors are at play in such a situation, but I would say that the insidious metastasis of video culture in our day to day life has a christ-load to do with it- why else would seemingly nobody want to talk to me about Zinn, Dennett, deLanda, E.O. Wilson, etc?