In the context of the global economic crisis, we are witnessing an important shift in the rhetoric of the media and the elite. Their warnings of riots and social upheaval seem to be implying that harder measures of control will be required; this way, the ‘War on Terror’ has served its purpose as a template for a ‘War on People’.
Contrary to the expectations of its population, the new government of the United States is not moving away from the path set by the Bush administration; the changes so far have only been a matter of appearance.
Making it worse
It is now common knowledge that the global economy – including that of the United States – is in a sorry state. We hear about it in both the mainstream and alternative media. You have probably been reading our economic analyses too. However, the difference is that in many of the mainstream and alternative sources we find much alarmism, confusion and disinformation, and few attempts to analyze responsibly and objectively – which is what we humbly try to achieve here. We suspect that the dark tone of the reports in the media is a significant fact in itself, and here is why:
The media is not just a descriptor of events. It is also a powerful tool of manipulation. It is in fact, so powerful, that it can have a decisive role in the creation of explanations of reality that people rely on for their daily lives. The media is constantly used to shape our assumptions and to direct our focus of attention. People in power know it. If politicians find themselves in hot water because of revelations that harm their image they may try to create a larger issue out of a non-event in order to shift the spotlight elsewhere (see the movie Wag the Dog for an amusing caricature of how it works). Likewise, populist leaders and their allies in the media will seek to spread out the news about governmental deeds or policies that make them look honest, patriotic, strong, smart or capable. This is the general rule.
Therefore, if a certain issue is a matter of concern and the language of the media and the elite tends to stress the negativity, we must ask why. Perhaps the question is even more important for economic issues, given that our capitalist model largely depends on the confidence of consumers, investors and financial speculators. What is said about the economy is a significant fact in itself, quite apart from the economic reality on the ground. If people in power were in agreement to bring the economy back to its pre-collapse state, we would be getting constant reassurances that even if things are a bit tough for the moment, the way back to prosperity is just around the corner thanks to the medicine that has been so well administered by our wise leaders.
In general that is not the message we are getting. So we need to ask where the alarmist and pessimistic atmosphere is leading us, and why.
Where? It is clear that it is leading us into a state of despair and confusion that will accelerate the economic dive.
Why? From what we have seen so far, we can think of two reasons: for the time being, to justify the bailouts that will save the pockets of the elite; and to hystericize the global society about the possibility of riots, looting, the collapse of the social fabric itself and even civil war.
As always I remind readers that this has been going on for quite some time under Presidents of BOTH parties… ~jude
So . . . you think you know quite a bit about Obama and his band of thieves.
You don’t know anything yet. Read on all of this as it all comes together in the last part…….. a must read.
-
This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money.
I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The
second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as
multi-billionaires. (It’s definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).
National Security Adviser James Jones issued a statement that begins: ‘The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk.
The White House responded swiftly and sharply to publication Sunday evening of more than 91,000 secret documents painting a bleak picture of the Afghanistan war, calling the leak “irresponsible” and saying that the source – the whistleblower website WikiLeaks — “opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan.”
WikiLeaks said its “Afghan War Diary” consists mostly of reports “written by soldiers and intelligence officers … describing lethal military actions involving the United States military.” WikiLeaks gave three news organizations – The New York Times, The (British) Guardian and Germany’s Der Spiegel – advance access to the “war logs” trove.
White House National Security Adviser James Jones issued a statement that begins: “The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security.
Scientists are concerned about a seep and possible methane near BP’s capped oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, a federal official said Sunday.
Both could be signs of leaks in the well that has now been plugged for three days.
The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because an announcement about the next steps had not yet been made.
The official, who is familiar with the spill oversight, would not say what is seeping near the well. The official said BP is not complying with the government’s demand for more monitoring.
Thad Allen, the retired U.S. Coast Guard admiral in charge of the administration’s spill response, demanded BP provide results of further testing of the seabed by Sunday at 9 p.m. ET.
“When seeps are detected, you are directed to marshal resources, quickly investigate, and report findings to the government in no more than four hours,” Allen said in a letter to BP managing director Bob Dudley.
“I direct you to provide me a written procedure for opening the choke valve as quickly as possible without damaging the well should hydrocarbon seepage near the well head be confirmed.”
Earlier, BP spokesman Mark Salt declined to comment on the allegation, but said “we continue to work very closely with all government scientists on this.”
Potential splits are emerging between world leaders on some of the key agenda items for the G8 and G20 summits, which get under way in Toronto today. Barack Obama, David Cameron and other world leaders have been setting out their stances on the following issues.
Recovery
Obama: Last week Obama wrote to fellow leaders warning that drastic cuts to public spending could jeopardise the tentative global recovery and risked a 1930s-style depression. “We must learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships and recession,” he wrote.
Cameron: As one of Europe’s main deficit hawks, the prime minister regards cutting spending as central to the global recovery. In an article today for Canada’s Globe and Mailhe praised the hosts of the summits for a “tough and successful programme of spending cuts to get your debt down and economy back on track” in the 1990s.
Others: The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, hit back at Obama’s warning by vowing to push ahead with public sector spending cuts and claiming that global economic recovery can be maintained without stimulus programmes. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, urged the summit to agree concrete deficit-reduction goals as a way of restoring investor confidence following the Greek debt crisis.
Change in Currency Policy Switches Focus of Summit to Other Members, but Some U.S. Lawmakers Remain Skeptical
BY BOB DAVIS
WASHINGTON—China’s announcement that it will let its currency appreciate puts it in a strong position going into a summit of the Group of 20 on Saturday, but does little to ease pressure from the U.S. Congress.
The bulk of the session of the G-20 industrialized and developing nations will be devoted to strengthening global growth. China can argue it is doing its bit for the major initiative, known as “rebalancing.”
Under the plan, the U.S. and other big trade-deficit countries have committed to increase their savings and import less, while the big trade-surplus countries—China, Germany and Japan—have pledged to do
the opposite. The latter are supposed to plot ways they will grow more through domestic consumption and less through exports.
The U.S., and to a lesser degree Japan, India, Brazil and other member countries, had been arguing for months that an undervalued Chinese currency destabilizes growth. A cheaper yuan encourages China to rely more on exports, undermining other export nations, especially at a time when big consuming countries aren’t likely to buy as many imports as they once did because of weaker economies.
“China is saying to the rest of the G-20, ‘It’s your move,’ ” says Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “It defuses any bombs that might have been thrown in their direction at the G-20.”
The focus now will shift to Germany and Japan, which are expected to explain policy changes they are planning.
“We’ll want to see from the other surplus countries a demonstration of a credible path toward increasing internal demand,” said a senior U.S. official, who noted the U.S. would be under pressure to show it was putting in place policies to address sky-high budget deficits.
On October 13, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson summonedthe CEOs of the nation’s largest banks into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department just a stone’s throw away from the White House. Each CEO was then handed a one-page document that said their company would agree to sell hundreds of billions worth of equity to the federal governmentthrough the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). “We plan to announce the program tomorrow – and that your nine firms will be the initial participants.” In case anyone missed the subtle message, Paulson added, “We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out, because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.” Sure enough,just like a certain fictional band land leader once did, all nine CEOs signed their respective contracts.
Yesterday, history repeated itself. This time it was the executives of BP who were summoned directly to the White House to have a little chat with the President and Attorney General Eric Holder (who has threatened BP with criminal prosecution). The exact conversation may never be known, and by the end of their “no-nonsense business meeting” BP emerged from the Roosevelt Room to announce that they would “voluntarily” place $20 billion into an escrow account to begin covering claims associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster and contribute another $100 million to a foundation that will support oil workers made unemployed by President Barack Obama’s indefinite ban on offshore oil drilling.Don’t buy for a second any of the mainstream media’s line about this being good for BP.
Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BP’s chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMR’s federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world.
the CEOs of the nation’s largest banks into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department just a stone’s throw away from the White House. Each CEO was then handed a one-page document that said their company would agree to sell hundreds of billions worth of equity to the federal 
