We, the people, are the ultimate consumer product – let’s change that

Fernando Guevara writes:

Who has the upper hand in the “Deep State” – who rules the globe today? Is it countries, is it corporations, or is it some type of constellation that differs from the power structures we have learned to think of as our governments?

If it isn’t we, the people, who run our world, how do we change that? The only way to make democracy possible is through an informed public. A sufficient segment of the public must inform itself enough so that it can (1) identify the forces that currently control the world and (2) change the way we do things in order to bring about a world that benefits people in general. We must change the current situation in which resources are bled from nature itself and from the poor, siphoning assets into fewer and fewer hands. At the core of this devouring of the poor by the rich is greed. Greed feeds on power – power over natural, monetary and intellectual resources. By intellectual resources in this context, I mean the minds of the people; the power that is manifested in controlling people’s minds and, thereby, their actions. People’s minds are controlled or influenced by, for instance, media that cultivate fear and imaginary divides between people, which is intended to, and often does, turn groups of people against each other. 

In order to attempt to maintain the consumption by the few of the many, labels are used to create non-sensical divides. Politicians encourage labels – the more stereotyped the better – in order to separate us (divide and sunder), so that war remains possible. Politicians, corporations and the militarised media that serve them encourage wars in which we, the people, are the ultimate consumer product. Examples of useful labels to generate wars are: Muslim, Islamist, American, Jewish, black, female, Christian and so on.

Around labels, conflicts are created or amplified, flames are fanned and wars are built and compounded. Twenty per cent of the world’s population is Muslim. What is a Muslim like? There are probably at least 1.5 billion answers to that question. However, crude stereotypes of Muslims as militant and extremist are often the starting point – and, unfortunately, ending point – for media presentations of Muslims and Islam. In interviews, Muslims often feel a need to start their presentation by stating something like “but I am moderate”, whereas someone who is identified as a Jew, or a woman, is assumed to be a potential victim. Thereby, the discussion starts in reverse for the Muslim, who must exonerate himself/herself before getting to the starting point – to the heart of the matter. That is the extent to which “Western” society has made cartoonish stereotypes of Muslim human beings. 

On 3 October 2021, Lars Vilks, who drew the “Muhammad cartoons”, died in a traffic accident. Mainstream media are using this as an opportunity to fan the flames against Muslims and tout the dangers of Islam and jihad as these media outlets describe them. It is widely believed that Vilks was used to inflame conflict, by the same media that hail him as a beacon of free speech and now emphasise that he lived under constant death threats. The term jihad might be one of the most mis-used terms in contemporary political discourse. Film-maker Deeyah Khan said it well: “Jihad is not about spilling blood, it’s about giving blood at a hospital.” (How Love Will Defeat Hate | Russell Brand & Deeyah Khan | Under The Skin, at 1:25:20.) Ms Khan is an excellent ambassador for humanity; she personifies how we can stay focused on our common humanity in the face of attempts to divide us by labels that are used to cultivate our acceptance of wars that are not intended to end but to continue to generate profits for conductors and contractors of war. 

In 1958 Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World and Enemies of Freedom, expressed concerns that his fictional world of horror was just around the corner, and that a totalitarian state could come about through new techniques of propaganda (among other means) that would bypass the rational side of man. Discussing methods and means of communication that diminish our freedoms, he spoke in terms of making nonsense of the democratic process, which is based on conscious choice on rational grounds. He discussed the importance of educating the public and linked children’s exposure to television commercials with the dangers of dictatorship. On advertising, and advertising agencies, he said “… you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason” (Aldous Huxley, interviewed by Mike Wallace. The quote is from 15:25 minutes into the broadcast). Although Huxley was indeed lenient on US politicians, he made some very valid points. 

One problem with greed, from the “Deep State’s” position, is that greed cannot be satisfied; when the rich run out of things to steal, they will end up going for each other. Maybe that’s what happened to Lehman Brothers in 2008. We will surely see more financial collapse, and perhaps the monetary system as we know it will collapse. The main question will be what real assets and values we will retain, in the wake of a collapse of the current system. Can we change the world so that it benefits the many, and ensures that everybody has core protections? I believe so, and I will address means and methods of change after identifying what I believe to be the main forces driving the current system, how and why the system has come about and how it is maintained.

Who benefits – cui bono – should be the starting point of any analysis of what interests and forces currently stand in the way of people’s ability to peacefully enjoy life, to pursue happiness. Politicians, military corporations, “Big Pharma”, power companies, “security” corporations, telecommunications and other oligarch corporate interests, as well as the media outlets that serve them encourage wars from which they all benefitWe, the people, are intended as the ultimate consumer product of these wars. Constellations of comparatively very few people and corporations have calculated how they will increasingly profit from the world’s entire population and its resources. If we don’t put a stop to that, they will consume us. 

How and why has the current “deep state” come about and how is it maintained?

The World War (I call it the World War, rather than World War I, II and III) is a globalist venture that goes far back in time. For the purposes of this article, suffice it to say that it predates what is generally referred to as World War I that started in 1914. I think that one of the most concise summaries of the World War, as I see it, was delivered by Swedish newscaster Carl Norberg, at the Wake Up World Conference 2021, in Malmö, Sweden. Mr Norberg noted that “World War I” was not about some shots in Sarajevo, which was just the excuse needed for Anglo-Zionist financial interests to start a war with the purpose of partitioning the Ottoman Empire, in consonance with the Sykes-Picot Pact (1916) and the Balfour Declaration (1917) and to, in true colonialist spirit, control access to the trade routes of strategic natural resources from Africa and the Middle East, in order to continue to exploit the rest of the world. (1:11:35, paraphrased and translated from Swedish to English.). Very succinct indeed. He has repeatedly pointed out that Israel is located in historic Palestine for a reason. And that it is not a religious reason. Norberg, by the way, is way ahead of the curve, as compared to most news outlets. 

In the negotiations leading up to the Sykes-Picot Pact between Britain and France, France stated quite boldly that divide and conquer was the preferred policy for ruling the Middle East. The mentality that is encompassed by the Sykes-Picot Pact was amplified in the Balfour Declaration; the creation of the state of Israel; the Oded Yinon Plan and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and is the basis for current US-UK politics. I have addressed Yinon’s plan and PNAC’s plan for Rebuilding America’s Defences, in a recent article published on Redress Information & Analysis. Here, I will settle for stating that the aforementioned are all expansionist plans for either regional or world domination of financial, physical and intellectual resources. 

Presently, the most serious danger of political or academic suicide, in the UK as well as in the US and other “Western” countries, remains voicing criticism of Zionism or Israel (you’ll be unseated for being “anti-Semitic” – look what happened to Jeremy Corbyn, and who replaced him). Although the current state of affairs is a result of power structures older than Zionism, and although empires other than the British and the US have been involved, I tend to focus on the US-Zionist constellation because it currently holds the upper hand in international politics. In matters of specific interest to Israel, the US serves Israel – not the other way round, which is why I tend to shine a specific light on Zionist aspirations. Examples are given below. 

In the United States, Zionists have terrorised Congress members to get an extra $1 billion funding for the missile project named Iron Dome, calling everyone who opposes the agenda an “anti-Semite”. The extra $1 billion (in addition to the $3.8 billion in US taxpayer money that Israel already gets every year) was snuck into a short-term government spending bill. The extra billion was to replenish Israel’s “Iron Dome” project. For a very short while, House members were able to halt the additional billion for Iron Dome funding but pro-Israel Democrats managed to secure Israel’s extra billion via a separate House vote, which passed in the House, and the bill will now go before the Senate (the upper house, or chamber, of the US Congress). Further, it is unbelievable what amounts the individual states spend on Israel, and on anti BDS legislation – to the detriment of the US, and in stark violation of the US Constitution that reserves the right to conduct foreign relations to the federal government (the several states are not permitted to conduct foreign relations of their own). BDS stands for “boycott, divestment and sanctions” of Israeli goods and services (in protest at Israel’s crimes against Palestinians). Boycott is itself protected by the freedom of expression rights of the constitution – an additional reason that anti-BDS legislation is unconstitutional. In the UK, as in the US, both houses of Parliament place Israeli interests above domestic interests, thereby selling themselves to a foreign entity, to the detriment of the constituencies that put them in office. I have, therefore, referred to them all as houses of ill repute, although what goes on there can just as well be described in terms of high treason. Also, I have sometimes referred to the USA as the USI, due to its placing of Israeli interests above the interests of the American public. As for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – Jeremy Corbyn had to be replaced by Keir Starmer. 

In August of 2021 Israeli consular officials met a dean at the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill, to attempt to remove  graduate student Kylie Broderick from teaching a course on the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” (Murtaza Hussain, September 28 2021. According to two UNC professors with knowledge of the meetings (who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution), the Israeli official accused the PhD student of anti-Semitism and said she was unfit to teach the course. Ms Broderick had made postings on Twitter that criticised Israel and Zionism. She was, therefore, without evidence, accused of anti-Semitism. In addition to the intervention by the Israeli government, UNC was pressured by a member of the US House of Representatives. Ms. Broderick said that “these people have never seen me teach, never seen my past evaluations which have said that I treat students fairly, and thus have no right to dictate what I say inside the classroom”. S~he added:

Israel-Palestine has become one of the most politicised areas of academia, with periodic firings of professors, prosecutions of students, and even the maintenance of public blacklists helping impose an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship over the topic. Even by that standard, the intervention of Israeli government officials directly with an American university over the teaching of a course represents a troubling new threat to academic freedom (emphasis added).

Commenting on the strangeness of a government consul-general being granted an audience for this matter, Ms Broderick said:

If this was a class on Hungary or Australia, would the university have permitted the attempted interference of a foreign government? The fact that this meeting happened at all is clearly a threat to academic freedom.

I have recently commented on the concept of “anti-Semitism” that was invoked in this matter. The good news is: an email signed by the chancellor, the provost and the dean of the College of Arts at UNC (dated 6 August 2021 and circulated by Israeli pressure groups) indicates that the course will go forward as planned. The Intercept reports that Ms Broderick “has since begun teaching without controversy or complaints from students”. It is great that UNC did not give in to raw Zionist terror. Most universities and colleges do. For instance, on 27 September 2021 Mondoweiss reported that Orange County School of the Arts in California “shut down a student meeting on Palestine after being contacted by the Anti-Defamation League. Students say the administration won’t acknowledge that it was censorship”. Here, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) tells you in its own words how it replaces people who disagree with Israel – in the United States government and on US campuses: “How are we going to beat back an anti-Israel divestment resolution at Berkeley? We’re going to make sure that pro-Israel students take over the student government – reverse the vote. This is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s Capital, this is how AIPAC must operate on our nations campuses”. This admission was made boastfully by AIPAC’s leadership development director in front of (among others) student leaders who had been brought to the convention in Washington DC on a paid trip from 370 campuses from all 50 US states, according to If Americans Knew.

In the context of the war on Afghanistan, Russell Brand has noted that the entire point of the war project was to take money from taxpayers and give it to defence contractors: “You can’t just do that directly, so you have to triangulate into an unnecessary war in Afghanistan. That’s what has to happen in order for that transfer of wealth to be facilitated. Consider other ways that situations… might be mobilised in order to transfer wealth from one group to another… usually a poorer group to… an elite group. It seems to be a relatively common practice (see video at 8:30 minutes). In the specific context of the costs of war, especially the “collateral damage” of drone strikes, Mr Brand noted:

It’s not an accident … it’s a necessary by-product, it’s an inevitable by-product. In order for that wealth transfer to take place, you have to have dead children. That’s calculated. It’s called… collateral damage. It’s a necessary loss… If you want to understand wealth transfer, if you want to understand war, if you want to understand why children die and why there’s animosity towards Western nations in nations in the Middle East… note that [“collateral” damage is] not inadvertent or accidental, but a necessary economic cycle in order to transfer wealth from ordinary people to elites… that’s why Julian Assange is in prison, that’s why those children are dead, that’s why it’s impossible to alter these systems through the ordinary means of democracy. That’s why there was a long war in Afghanistan, that’s why children die. (See video at 9:29 minutes).

In his moving and disturbing presentation about the loss of life in Afghanistan, Mr Brand also said that up to half of the $14 trillion spent by the Pentagon since 9/11 went to for-profit defence contractors. Noting that the distinctions between US “administrations” is minor when it comes to the crunch, Brand said (at 8:05 minutes): “… they promote small differences in order to prevent you from understanding and realising that an entirely different world is possible”. 

For reasons I have indicated above, I conclude that Zionism/Israel still holds the upper hand in the “Deep State”, but that the stranglehold is cracking. (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) is certainly gaining traction. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause is growing at the speed of knowledge. For instance, on 18 September 2021, in more than 50 cities across six continents, Palestinian rights supporters and sports fans participated in the #BoycottPUMA Global Day of Action, in response to PUMA’s sponsoring the Israel Football Association. By 23 September the Twitter reach of #BoycottPUMA had nearly doubled to 17 million. While the Israel Football Association teams play in Israeli-only stadiums in what is euphemistically referred to as “settlements”, Sa’id Yousef Odeh, a 16-year-old Palestinian First Division budding football star, was shot dead by Israeli occupation forces in May. When I last I checked, on 3 October this year, 98,911 people had signed a petition calling on PUMA to join Ben & Jerry’s in exiting illegally occupied Palestine and stop its complicity with the Israeli apartheid state. 

But Zionism and Israel are not the only powers around. Covidiocy is in the running, and coming up on the inside, as are other oligarch interests. The latest wind from the Holy Seat has announced that the unvaccinated are on the list of security threats. My question to that is: if the vaccinated are safe, how are the unvaccinated a danger? (I won’t delve further into the implications of the use of the term “Corona”, or that some doctors might not be treated with clemency when judged by history.)

Where does climate change rank on the war-priorities list? Is it passé? Or will it be “solved” by nuclear interest corporations, who wish to save us the expenses of wind, water and solar energy? What are the relative positions of the transnational security, telecommunications, private prison and private military industries? While Muslim extremists are not nearly as in vogue as they were only just before the outbreak of Corona in 2020, Islamist extremism or for that matter just Islam, is still a currency that leverages knee-jerk responses, as evidenced by the 4 October 2021 news coverage of the death of Lars Vilks, who drew the so called Muhammad cartoons. Insinuations are rife in various media, and some don’t bother to cloak their intent of implicating Islam, and don’t bother with the term “extremist” when they say that prior to his death following the collision of his car with a truck, Muslims had tried to kill him. 

Are these transnational companies changing and, if so, how? Is NATO over? Why is Sweden signing military agreements with Denmark and Norway, stating that it feels threatened by Russia? I’m trying hard to keep a straight face here. While Denmark and Norway came out of the closet long ago, Sweden was “neutral” (militarily non-aligned), although in consonance with NATO since 1954. Sweden is an “enhanced opportunity partner” of NATO. Prior to that, Sweden pursued a beneficial neutrality policy” towards Nazi Germany (looking the other way while German troops traversed Swedish territory to and fro). So, why come out and sign separate agreements with lapsing NATO members, and why now? What is going on? It’s not the Swedish people who feel threatened by Russia (nor were they consulted), so it must be someone else who wants Sweden to deviate from its longstanding “neutrality” that kept it from openly engaging in wars, while providing weapons and equipment. Not only that – playing both sides (read: all sides) against the middle, Sweden has had a consistent policy of sending “humanitarian” aid to all wars that uses its resources. So, selfless. Sweden just happened to make a pretty penny off it.

Who knows where all the chips will fall. What we do know is that the cracks are widening for established powers. And guess who’s in the running! WE are! We, the people. 

How can we help each other stay human and humane and bring positive change to society? 

How do we undo the evils visited upon us all by the Sykes-Picot mentality? In order to create a society that benefits the public, we must focus on our common humanity, and resist being divided and conquered along nonsensical lines. We have to withstand destructive attempts to divide us along ethnic, religious, national, gender and sexual orientation lines. Or by the completely non-sensical label of “race”. What is race? How do you determine it? And what do you use the answer for? It takes hard work to remain humane when anger and fear assail us. We must strive to focus on the fact that most of us just want to live and let live, and we must nurture means that make that possible: communication across “label-lines”, participation in community activities, transmission of truths, peaceable assembly and protest, boycott and divest from Israeli companies and their complicit with them. We must be willing to abandon comfortable stereotypes and meet on a personal level as individuals with common goals.

Many people assume that I am Muslim, due to my strong reactions to the discrimination I have witnessed against Muslims. While I consider my personal beliefs to be just that – personal – I will say that I relate very well to people of all religions I have come across, so long as they are not fanatics. My spouse identifies as atheist, although by and large follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Above all other categories we both identify with, we both identify as human. I think that identifying as Latino, black, gay, female, Christian, Muslim, etc. is fine, but that these are sub-categories that should be balanced with an overarching identification as human. 

The case of Palestine and Zionism is an area where double standards abound and must cease, in order to build a country with any form of credibility and justice for its citizens. Judaism is compatible with this, in fact it demands justice. Likewise, Islam demands justice and respect for other religions. Zionism is not compatible with justice, democracy or any religion. I won’t go into it here, but I have covered in other articles the fact that the racial ideology of Zionism is incompatible with the religion of Judaism and that Zionism uses world Jewry as a human shield against criticism of Zionist apartheid and ethnic cleansing. How will it end? A two-state solution won’t solve the problem of apartheid, the Jewish supremacy state of Israel. Could a resolution be found in a country for all its people? Could it be called Jerusalem? Could the capital be Jerusalem City? Most Israelis (over 90 per cent) assert that Jews have a “right to return” to historic Palestine because, they say, God gave it to the Jews. The right to return is certainly more reasonably asserted by second or third generation exiled Palestinians, whose claims are traceable, than by Zionists whose Khazarian ancestors converted to Judaism over a thousand years ago. Based on an asserted right to “return”, however, present day Zionists claim a right for all Jews to immigrate to Palestine. God gave Palestine to the Khazars? And only Jewish Khazars? And gave the right to their descendants, even if born in Vietnam in 2021, to immigrate to Palestine? 

In South Africa after apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up by the Government of National Unity to help deal with the traumas caused by apartheid. The same needs to happen in Palestine/Israel, whatever you choose to call it. Professor Lawrence Davidson wrote an excellent article about Jewish values of regret, apology, atonement and redemption, and a rabbi who preached the necessity of these but refused to apply it to the Palestinians. He wrote that the rabbi ridiculed the notion that there is an occupation of Palestine and labelled those Palestinians who resist Israeli aggression as “terrorists”. It reminds me of a Palestinian support demonstration I participated in, where one Zionist man said to a Palestinian: “I can’t be a baby-killer because you are not human.” The difference between that man and the rabbi in Davidson’s article is that I witnessed the man in the demonstration approach the Palestinian man later with a sincere apology. Professor Davidson wrote: “One of the main things Palestinians demand of Israelis is that they, as a collective, sincerely and publicly recognise that the Zionist state has done them a great injustice. The Israelis should admit that the creation of the State of Israel rests on acts of aggression that abridged the human and national rights of the Palestinians. For this Zionist Israel must accept responsibility.” Davidson said that the “Israeli Jews must democratise their nation, give up the racist discrimination upon which their ethnocentric power is based and allow back, indeed welcome back, those they have wrongfully ethnically cleansed.“ Professor Davidson sounds to me like a kind, honest, forgiving, responsible, reasonable and respectful person. If he is Jewish, he sounds like what I call a Jewish Jew; like a real Jew. In any case, he sounds like an example of a person who will facilitate the common struggle for justice and equality before the law.

Not even Jesus offered forgiveness in the absence of regret. There has to be an honest recognition of what happened in Palestine, before the healing can begin. There also needs to be recognition and change in the way we, the over seven billion, are treated by our “legal” systems. If there are any democracies in the world they need to step up and acknowledge this immediately. 

Further, war contractors should be held accountable for war crimes, up and down the chains of command. It boils down to this: if you are a soldier by duty or a soldier of fortune, you are in the military and military law applies. Commanders should be held to command responsibility. Period. As for the standard of proof, “should have known” (as applied to whether a commander knew that troops down the chain of command were committing war crimes) is the applicable standard. It is the standard of proof that the US applied in order to convict and execute foreign commanders after “World War II”. It is the standard of proof that the US refused to apply to its own generals after the Korea and Vietnam wars. Now let’s see it applied to “Allied” generals (not the execution part – I oppose the death penalty); let’s see the Allied generals held to account. I have heard insipid arguments from US attorneys about the impossibility of applying the international legal standard of proof “should have known” to US military commanders, because they assert that a “did actually know” standard applies to US military commanders under US law. While I haven’t checked recently, last time I checked US military law it incorporated international law by reference. In any case, the US is bound by customary international law as well as by treaties on the subject. Moreover, from where does the US derive its legitimacy as a nation-state? From international law? 

If it is too incendiary to suggest that the law applies to all; if equality before the law is not on the table, we will continue to think that our politicians and judges are hypocrites who consider themselves above the law. If that is the case, we will need to change our governments. Imagine the world with its main powers playing a game of chess. Imagine the chessboard consisting of hunched-over people. Imagine those people peacefully straightening up, standing tallIntifada is an uprising. Let’s have a peaceful intifada. Let’s have it now.


Fernando Guevara can be reached at fernandoguevara2019@yahoo.com

Related

Where is Zionism taking us?

In “Home”

Israel and Jewish identity and power

In “Highlights”

A problem of clerical hypocrisy: The case of Rabbi David Wolpe

In “American stooges”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.