Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Big Trouble in Little Britain
Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.
Some kind of answer to Vidal’s proposition; extrapolated by way of ‘syllogism’ to ‘incorporate’ all Politicians as ‘professional’, is playing out right now ‘across the pond’ in the ‘51st State’?
‘Small news’ – but large oak trees from little acorns grow?
Or perhaps the consideration that, automatically, by definition, a ‘Hydra’ is ‘many headed’ is more apt?
Under the ‘Freedom of Information Act (2000)’ on ‘Airstrip One’, as Orwell referred to Britain, the expenses claimed by elected politicians have come under close scrutiny of the taxpayers funding such ‘gravy train’ to cause of much ‘embarrassment’ of ‘honourable members’ – as elected politicians in Britain are known, and as were once passengers on said ‘gravy train’ as become derailed.
There continuing to be much ‘gnashing of teeth and wailing’ amongst ‘honourable members’ as ‘perpetrators of fraud’ in the House of Commons concerning ‘illegitimate expenses’ revealed, as well as back peddle furious’ in the publicised ‘repayment’ of considerable sums to taxpayer by greatest offenders.
‘I care not who makes the laws (as banker) but that I benefit from them (as politician)’- such the price of ‘Gravy Train’?
As could be said; ontology derived way of ‘Cui Bono?’
The ‘revelation’ of expenses fraud by elected British Politicians as ‘gouge’ of subject, ‘citizen’ not applicable such be the ‘Airstrip’, or such the ‘jams as require kicking out’ and as sung of by MC5, has not been without measure of theatrical resistance by House of Commons – though Henry Paulson going down on bended knee to Nancy Pelosi in a different house of politics takes some beating?
‘Nice touch, Henry’ – as if the result was ever really in doubt as to ‘Bailout’ – or indeed, apropos of the expenses claims by Politicians in Britain, just another variety of the screwing of the taxpayer by the privileged played out?
In Britain as a result of expenses scandal ongoing ‘heads have rolled’ including that of Michael Martin as the British equivalent of Nancy Pelosi – and the setting is for ‘more’ despite the attempt to ‘brazen it out’ as regrettable characteristic of ‘honourable member’ as has become the norm, – and as can easily lead to following question:
Is Politics no longer the ideal of ‘public service’; is it merely the serving of self interest by way of ‘Corporate shilling’ taken; being a member of such ‘club’ conferring privilege of ‘snout in trough public’ – in addition to generous remuneration provided for ‘services rendered’?
(A ‘shilling’ as used to be a coin in Britain, about the worth of a ‘quarter’)
Are politicians ‘in it for what they can get’, and to such ‘music’, the payer of ‘piper’ not seen as ‘Electorate’ – but ‘Financier’ or ‘Corporatist’ – and such as calls the ‘tune’?
Think Wall St., think Main St. – and forget about ‘taxpayer’?
Forget about the electorate.
Such the tragedy of Western Capitalist Democracy ‘playing out’?
As ‘Dialectic’ material, or sufferance immaterial?
In terms of ‘history’ as concerns Britain, ‘taking of the shilling’ refers to a once common means of conscription into the Navy, whereby once ‘King’s Shilling’ taken, by whatever means devious; thereby ‘conscripted – or ‘owned’?
As; accordant with etymology, Politician becomes mere ‘Corporate Shill’ contemporaneous?
Yet there be amongst the greater body humane, despite effort of the Stateless as ‘bastards’ standing, those ‘mature’ enough to continually apply that great question ‘Cui Bono?’ – as can be resultant in leading quote above by Gore Vidal concerning ‘prepared to run’ as should be ‘automatically disqualified by definition’ ?
The ‘norm Political’ being ‘questionable deeds’ as so kept hidden as to remain amongst ‘the elect’; as privilege of power, the gains individual ‘unknown’?
Being that ‘corruption’ is not seen as questionable expression of privilege of power, but as ‘normal Politics’ – as in ‘so it goes’?
As Mel Brooks, in character was fond of saying, as rule broken while knowing no consequences as punishment forthcoming, such the flicker of the ‘movie’ as ‘History of the World: Part 1.’
‘It’s good to be King’
Lord Acton, or John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, striking similar nail on the head, under different flicker, per chance of ‘candle’, when he wrote in 1887:
‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’?
‘Absolute power’ as vanity; as pretension, as transgression particular such the ‘bonfire’ as would be heaped upon in face of real humanity as spark to same, as ‘Wolfe American’ so howled from wilderness as truth be seen more readily; as would lead to question asked to Politician Professional by an electorate empowered by ‘Information’ as aspect of ‘Freedom’, and as essence of Democracy such the equality realised – when ‘arrogation’ be dispelled as ‘illusion’:
‘Is this the goodness of Politicians as representation of ‘the Demos’ – is it good to be ‘the Politician’?’
The study of ‘History’ as exercise in ‘selectivity’, as apperception rationalised, and concerning America, revealing one of the greatest living Historians as Howard Zinn – such as through earnest endeavour and integrity resulted in the sublime:
‘A Peoples History of the United States’?
Thus to ‘embrace’ ‘Cui Bono?’ – by way of that ‘actually occurred’ – as opposed to that as ‘recorded’’ – or as close approximation as can be got at by ‘reading between the lines’ concerning current ‘imbroglio political’ on ‘Airstrip One’ …
Do not want the history as passes so ‘recorded as interpreted’ such the ‘tedium of exercise of power’ thereby evidenced – but want the history as ‘real’, as ‘of the people’ , and as of such as am however small a part?
(N.B.: a part, rather than apart)
‘Something is rotten in the State’?
The pretension as to ‘individuality’ thus standing – as challenge to the Stateless; those whom to all appearance, but primarily of vanity, see themselves as ‘Masters of the Universe’, and unto which humanity still stands as ’Bonfire’ concerning?
To return to the small point of this article, as ‘bayonet fixed’ has ‘ point’ such the pretension, and such the acknowledgement of reality; despite spin, despite apperception, despite the corruption of power as would find ramification interpreted; ‘denouement’ as ‘truth will out’?
It is tragic that the leading quote by Gore Vidal, which sees Politics as refuge of scoundrel in the calculus sentential or propositional, has proven ‘perspicacious to point of prescience ’ concerning British Politician.
But behind the scenes of such ‘theatre of happenstance’ lies money as interest, as Corporatism once more has reared but one ugly head; as that of ‘Hydra’?
And such Hydra extends Geographic, the way Statelessness would ‘rise above’ – in form of ‘creep beneath the radar’?
The fact being that the fraudulent antics of Members of Parliament in Britain have been transparent and well known for a long time to those of greater ‘freedom’ – such the arrogation as be within circle of power as exists when ‘Money talks’?
The great question ‘Cui Bono’ demanding no more than a ‘following of the money’ – as leads to gain, and the enumeration of ‘Modus Operandi’?
Such as would deny premise of ‘The Don’ that ‘stuff happens’?
In such context, the real power behind the throne, the real ‘Capo di Tutti Capo’ , still to be revealed?
To understand what is happening ‘across the pond’ with this sudden, surprising application of ‘Freedom of Information’, it is requisite to apply the ‘Vidal Principal’, or maxim of ‘Cui Bono?’ asked- and as leads ‘automatically to the disqualification’ of illusion?
- Behind every deed Political there is a purpose, the norm having become that it is unsavoury, having more to do with pragmatic serving of self interest rather than the ideal of public good?
Unsavoury enough as to merit ‘spin’?
’Unsavoury’ such as could TS Eliot describe ‘prepared political candidate’ as ‘Hollow Man’?
In this age of ‘Digital Panopticon’, it not being unreasonable to suppose that what now known to masses in Britain, as released under auspices of ‘Private’ ( read ‘Corporate’?) Security agent through medium of ‘free press’, was long afore known by those who would exercise the ‘power of mind over mind’, as Jeremy Bentham so defined?
The real question to be asked is not ‘why?’ but ‘why now?’, way of refusal to kiss outstretched hand of ‘Don’ in refusal to accept illusion?
Stuff doesn’t just happen when you think ‘Cui Bono?’
The author of this small article greatly admires the First and Second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Does such admiration make a terrorist?
- For it is indeed amongst such atmosphere of spin as would come to prevail, that this small article is written.
Behind the ‘fallen head’ of the hydra in Britain; in the shadows where spin is worked, where the Stateless weave tapestry of illusion, there lurks great menace; a tyranny to freedom, as to thread of hope being denied.
For the works of the Stateless are never ‘complete’, as of their nature reiterated as externalisation, as would betray the hope of humanity in the illegitimacy and as such, should be disqualified automatically by definition from ever ‘running’, even as they be ‘well prepared’ in the scheming?
What is happening right now in Britain is a very dangerous thing.
There is a collapse of belief in Politicians, and an accompanying anger of taxpayer as electorate which can be turned to the advantage of Fascism, or Corporatism. Add to this the collapse of the Economy, and the probability of Democracy being degenerated to Corporatism in Britain is multiplied.
Do not for one moment imagine that such Corporatism will redress the balance of distribution of wealth, or injustice; Corporatism automatically by definition is the enforced repression of the many by the few in the subjugation of individuality to the body corporate as an ‘externalisation’.
Corporations have rights greater than mere men is the illusion.
As some deserve so much more by way of share than others is also component of same illusion.
So here is how it may play out in Britain, and you have to bear in mind that we talk of what is already a ‘surveillance society’, where the average person is recorded on a Closed Circuit Camera three hundred times daily, ‘1984’ prescient by quarter of a Century concerning ‘Big Brother’.
The key point to all of the following is that ‘superficiality’ prevails.
The ‘Corporatist mentality’ is not a mentality encouraging questioning, it seeks to direct questioning and deflect attention.
Another great American, Thomas Pynchon, captured this as ‘succinctly as prescience’ in proposing concept of ‘wrong questions’?
The wrong question to ask of the expenses scandal in Britain today is: ‘why’?
One of the right question is: ‘why now?’
For with such advance upon question a layer of the onion is peeled, way of refusal to accept that when it comes to gain pecuniary, we should not be looking at the crumbs at the table, but at that expropriated greater, and from which such crumbs fall?
With deliberation as to scheme, and not as happenstance.
We should not be looking at the petty larcenists, but at the grand larcenists whom they serve?
We should not be looking at ‘stuff’ as ‘happenstance’, but at tragedy determined within ‘scheme’?
We should have the awareness of insight as provided by Goering concerning how situations can be manipulated and managed with the objective of gain furthered concerning ‘war’?
When it boils down to it under the heat of ‘Cui Bono’?, ‘war’ is no more than a ‘scheme’, the term being synonymous with ‘racket’.
It was another great American, Smedley Butler, who enumerated such proposition from the basis of experience.
So what will happen in Britain, if all goes according to scheme, is that there will be new faces – with clean expense sheets and clearer agenda as to who served.
Their expense sheets will remain clean as long as they do the bidding of their masters. The same trend of freedom given up through legislation shall be voted for, and there shall be greater translation into further taxation upon the electorate, and greater expropriation so serving injustice social. There will be a time, alas, when those with memory shall be able to look from new to old – and see no difference.
As the face of Corporatism be stared at in Britain, and as ‘Hydra’ be seen across a pond?
Because a farm is a form of scheme, is it not, and the most nefarious scheme is that which includes man as but another animal, contributory to the gain in the ‘crop’ resultant?
Say nought of Maggie, and refusal to work upon, indeed, and as would follow upon right questions being asked?
Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a to to whom?", a double dative construction) is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be. With respect to motive, a public works project which is purported to benefit the city may have been initiated rather to benefit a favoured campaign contributor with a lucrative contract.–Wikipedia