I find myself musing. There has been some suggestion that my notes on these subjects, arising from some articles this past week, have been a bit paranoid. Hmm. I’m raising an alarm. Not sure I’m paranoid, though. But, it has got me musing.

This note will be a bit scattershot. But so are my thoughts. First, the exchange about paranoia:

COMMENTATOR: (Referring to the article in The (London) Guardian) “Take away the big brother paranoid tone of this and there’s nothing wrong with it at all. Campaigns used good analysts to target voters and won – hardly the global conspiracy the tone of this article makes out.”

MY RESPONSES: “Gareth, I hear you. If you are familiar with my Page, if you have read my notes attached to this article, you will know that I’ve spent some 29 years studying potential corruption in the UK and the US, associated with arms deals, and the extent to which, in both countries, the powerful lobbies involved in government arms dealing exert considerable ‘influence’ in their respective bodies politic.

Now. I guess you could call that, of itself, paranoid. In which case, all I can do is invite you further to read my book. I didn’t begin with any preconceived notions. I went where I was told to look. I chronicle what I was told, what I saw. Make up your own mind. All I can say is that I, personally, am not paranoid. Disappointed? Maybe. But not a drooler.

This article, however, appearing as it does in a very respectable British quality newspaper, subject, of course, to all the usual caveats about believing what someone else has seen, researched and written, subject to that, it appears to be quite well-informed and clear-headed.

What the article appears to be proposing is worrying. I don’t think that is paranoid. For myself, I don’t care that consumer technology targets. I shrug. You don’t want to be targeted, don’t hand out information. Don’t be using the web to shop, to browse. Once you do. Bingo. You’re targeted. Every time we fill out a form telling folks we are male and white, we’re targeted. The answer lies in our own hands.

But. If this article is true. Married to what I discovered in my own research. That the lobbies, previously mentioned, are now able and willing to marry up with that consumer technology, to conduct military and intelligence psyops, with a view subliminally to ‘influence’ the way we vote, the manner in which our country is run. Then, I’m concerned. You can call it paranoia. I call it concern.

At least when this ‘influencing’ was analog. Cash in back pockets. SuperPAC’s. Spreading around the odd false leaflet or two. At least then, ordinary citizens had a fighting chance to level the playing field.

Bu, if this has gone digital, and intelligence, military, government and politicians are now in bed with consumer technology giants (all of whom seem to have no moral compass whatsoever). Then, the playing field is far from level. And yes, I’m concerned. A lot.”


“Gareth, one additional point. Along with consumer targeting. I’m really not too concerned with political targeting. Again, I get what you are saying.

I was involved in political campaigning for many years. You hit a doorstep. You ask some questions. You get answers. You profile. You then target.

I helped to set up one of the first computerized mailing lists in a British Conservative Parliamentary constituency, back in the Eighties. I mean, we were talking M-DOS.

I know about political targeting. And I’m really not too fussed about that targeting being upgraded, and becoming digitalized. Again, if you don’t want to be categorized, don’t provide the information.

And that is the dividing line. The suggestion in this article is not of a souped-up version of digitalized political targeting, based on voluntarily-provided data.

The inference (and it’s a pretty strong inference) is that these are not warm and fuzzy political campaigns, organized in the open, with information legally obtained.

The inference is that these are covert operations, organized by the military and intelligence establishments, in tandem with consumer technological giants, to obtain information by subterfuge, and then to use that information subliminally and secretly, to condition and brainwash the general population.

That’s psyops. Nowhere close to being what you proffer so casually. With respect, Gareth.”

All of which kind of leads onto another point that was rattling around in my head. But I couldn’t zero in on until I’d had this exchange.

I righteously declare that it’s a nonsense to say that rich people don’t buy elections. But here I am saying that rich people buy elections.

Ok. There is a distinction. At least in my mind.

Some billionaire donating to a SuperPAC. Some billionaire buying up billboards by the dozen. Some billionaire even standing as a candidate. That doesn’t stop you walking down to the polling booth, and voting the way you want.

And no. Until I see a lot more evidence (at least a long article in The Guardian). No, I don’t buy into the notion that all of the electronic voting machines are digitalized to produce Trump as the winner.

With things on an analog basis. Reasonably above board. Pretty much out in the open. Frankly, it’s still a game. And ordinary folk still have a fighting chance in the game. Even if ‘above board’ includes Bilderbergers meeting in some cozy hideaway, up the side of a Swiss mountain. Actually. Especially so.

But, the moment the Rockefellers of old, match up with the Zuckerbergs of the present, marry into intel and government operations, upgrade to ubiquitous consumer technology, and take the whole thing into the land of subliminal, covert psyops, then, as I say, we ordinary folks don’t stand a chance. And that makes it different.

Hmm. Does that mean I’m giving up? No. Until the day I die, I will continue to be an optimist. At the end of the day. This always comes back to people. And people can be persuaded.

So. Keep on voting. Keep on advocating. Keep on being vigilant. I have an investigation to finish. Blogs to update. Activists in the UK to speak with. A political party here and there to reform. I’m not done yet. Well, body and mind willing. In between the panic, the pain and the naps.

In the meantime, let me finish by giving a plug to another of my fave subjects: mutualism. There will always be greedy people. Rich people. They will always seek to control. To exploit. So. If you want to live in that society, fine. Try to expose them, for sure. Try to beat them, for sure. But, at the same time, consider also leaving them to their own devices. And building your own alternative community.

Set up co-op’s. For farming, for industry, for services. For public as well as private services. Education, as well as groceries. Join a credit union. Lend to yourselves. Build with your neighbors. Create communities which have no interest in rich people. And in which rich people have no interest. There’s the best way to avoid the Rockefellers, the Bilderbergs, the Zuckerbergs, the banks, the conspiracies, just the rich guy round the corner.

I remember the most sensible thing a Green Party person said to me, when I asked him what ‘localism’ meant, and why it was so important. He said, Geoff, you go off, strip the world of its natural resources, plunder the oil, deplete the soil. And when you’re done. And you have no food or fuel. You come back to us. And we’ll have a ready-made, self-sustaining ecosystem all ready for you. Ok … ??

(Oh. And Happy US Teacher Week.)

(Facebook comments here.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s