Sunday, December 1, 2019

Herbert Schiller: How Did Thinking That Benefitted the Few Gain the Acceptance of the Many?

Today's world which embodies unimaginable suffering of billions of humans and other beings with its sixth major extinction, devastating endless wars, crushing poverty, redistribution of wealth into the hands of the very few, with nuclear weapons and other critical threats to all of life on Earth, and more can all be traced to asking and answering this essential question: How did thinking that benefited the few gain acceptance of the many? May we all be passionate in our quest of answering this question and for the truth that is to be found on the other side of our illusions, ignorance, and indoctrination. The truth holds the potential to set us all free. We humans can evolve beyond our infancy. The time is now. — Molly

 
How did thinking that benefited the few gain the acceptance of the many?

For manipulation to be most effective, evidence of its presence should be nonexistent.... It is essential, therefore, that people who are manipulated believe in the neutrality of their key social institutions.

Capitalism cannot be reduced to one or a few features, but it does possess one relationship, central to its existence and operation, that constitutes the essence of inequality and ineradicable instability: the wage-labor-capital connection that dwells at the heart of the system. 

But revolutionary is not an acceptable term to those who benefit from, and deny at the same time, the savage exploitativeness of the social system.

How can a democratic discourse exist in a corporate owned informational system? Who, for example, possesses freedom of speech in such a society?

The content and forms of American communications the myths and the means of transmitting them are devoted to manipulation. When successfully employed, as they invariably are, the result is individual passivity, a state of inertia that precludes action.

Triumphant capitalism has unleashed a powerful drive toward inequality, not improvement, in the social sphere.

The "cumulative effects" of unbridled commercialism, however difficult to assess, constitute one key to the impact of growing up in the core of the world's marketing system. Minimally, it suggests unpreparedness for, and lack of interest in, the world that exists outside the shopping mall. 

In the 1990's, a time of corporate capital's global ascendancy, the mildest restraints on its prerogatives have been peremptorily rejected. Automatically, under this designation, measures to protect national cultural industries, for example, have been ruled unacceptable infringements of "free trade."

Deregulation has been, above all else, a means of reducing corporate business's accountability to the public. 

With deregulation, one sector of the economy after another is "liberated" to capital's unmonitored authority. The very notion that there is a public interest is contested.

Behind all the hype shaping the electronic highway are corporate interests. These huge companies are doing the most natural thing in the world to them; following their own corporate interest. 

The flow of information it promotes is free in one respect only. The flow is expected to be freely admitted to all the spaces that its providers desire to transmit to. Otherwise there is nothing free about the information. Quite the contrary. Information and message flows are already, and will continue to be, priced to exact the highest revenues extractable. 

Though some still see the Internet, for example, as a democratic structure for international individual expression, it is more realistic to recognize it as only the latest technological vehicle to be turned, sooner or later, to corporate advantage for advertising, marketing and general corporate aggrandizement. 

Ultimately, each transnational firm strives for its own advantage, and is supported in that effort by the state power wherein it resides, or at least where its main shareholders are domiciled.

How well a posse policy will fare in a world with 3 billion people below the poverty line and nuclear warheads scattered around a dozen or more regions like melons in a field, is not easy to imagine. 

One growing threat to the stability of the U.S. economy, and therefore to its capability to continue to direct the global order, paradoxically emerges from its success in establishing capitalism around the world.

Popular dissatisfaction seems to occur only when the shopping or the commercials are interrupted. In such an atmosphere, is there any reason to imagine that saturation shopping could be a source of instability to the U.S. world position? 

I have never forgotten how the deprivation of work erodes human beings, those not working and those related to them. And from that time on, I loathed an economic that could put a huge part of its workforce on the streets with no compunction.

The actions and inactions of hundreds of millions of people and nearly 200 states, will affect what kind of world emerges in the time ahead. 

Herbert Schiller
Quotes from Living In the Number One Country 

*****

A review of Living In the Number One Country:
Reflections from a Critic of American Empire

Living in the Number One Country is Herbert I. Schiller's chronicle of the symbiotic relationship between post-WWII American Empire and the substance and technology of the communications businesses. Schiller traces how the State has supported corporatized information by pushing their products abroad both through phony pronouncements about "the free-flow of information," and by subsidizing research and development for new technologies. Schiller's refreshing account infuses elements of his own experience; growing up during the Great Depression in New York, as a bureaucrat in the civilian sector of the military occupation forces in Berlin after the war, and as a radical journalist and academic.
 
This intriguing book argues that the main pillar of today's U.S. economy—the ever-expanding communication sector—is also the most crucial element in keeping a 500-year social system, capitalism, alive. Capitalism's future relies not only on labor exploitation, but also on a steadily entertained, and hence diverted, populace. Therein lies the importance of challenging the overarching institutions of corporate information production. 

Under Medicare for All, You Will Never Lose Your Health Insurance Ever Again

As we work individually and collectively to emerge from the fog of the domination culture that’s been normalized for so long, we’ll come to see the greed that is at the root of the patriarchal, neoliberal, predatory capitalist system that again and again justifies why people must suffer the madness and brutality of bankruptcy and death under a system based on greed and profit rather than care. We can stop this evil! May we grow into a strong, courageous, conscious, caring, evolving and awakening people who again and again unite to simply do the right thing. The power of the powerful is strong, but they are 1% and we are 99%. Another world is possible! — Molly


 70% of Americans oppose bosses being allowed to change or eliminate an employee's health insurance. That's our strongest case for Medicare for All you'll never lose your health insurance again.

Many centrist pundits have convinced themselves that Medicare for All (M4A) is unpopular because, when you include certain details about M4A in polling questions, support levels drop significantly. But in convincing themselves of this, centrist pundits seem remarkably incurious about whether this same thing occurs for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) when you include certain details about it in polling questions.

Earlier this week, Emerson Polling helped answer this question when it asked voters whether they support employers being allowed to change or eliminate an employee’s health insurance against the employee’s wishes. Only 11 percent of voters said they supported this while 70 percent opposed it.

This key and inherent feature of ESI, which is present in our status quo system and is preserved in Pete Buttigieg’s health plan and Joe Biden’s health plan, is one of the least popular things I’ve ever seen polled about the US health care system.

What I make of polls like this, along with the rest of the polls conducted on health care proposals, is that as a general rule people absolutely hate the idea of insurance instability. The best way to scare people about M4A is to use talking points that make it seem like their insurance situation is going to become unstable, i.e. “you will lose your current health insurance plan.” But these same sorts of talking points work equally well when trying to slam ESI. “Your employer can change or eliminate your health insurance at any time without your consent” is a terrifying thought but is exactly how ESI works.

Outside of the messaging game though, there is an objective answer to the question of whether M4A or ESI provides you the most stability. And the answer is that M4A does. After M4A is enacted, Americans will be seamlessly covered from cradle to grave by a national health plan that does not go away when they change jobs, when they turn twenty-six, when their employer finds a cheaper alternative, or anything else.

This is a key selling point of M4A — you will never lose your health insurance ever again — and M4A advocates need to be emphasizing it more, especially when faced with spurious criticisms that attempt to somehow cast M4A as the system that causes people to lose their insurance.

Please go here for the original article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/10/medicare-for-all-employer-sponsored-insurance-stability?fbclid=IwAR2QVUGDiizdD2JHysZrCt_65SHPJAyJTEfQsVlF75fzPB6H0PUhu-bIvL8     

87 Percent of Americans Unaware There's Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

In the words of Noam Chomsky, we Americans are a massively propagandized people. If we weren’t we would have been informed decades ago about the looming climate crisis and we would have united as a nation and world to transition off of fossil fuels and onto renewables as rapidly as possible.
But instead the evil acts of propagandizing rather than informing us has humanity and most life on Earth facing extinction by the end of the century if we don’t engage in massive comprehensive changes now.
We’ve run out of time. The status quo of pragmatism and realism will kill us and all of our children if we don’t awaken and evolve and unite to act out of the consciousness of a highest good for us all and our planet.
Of course, part of the necessity of awakening is to inform ourselves. In Bill McKibben’s latest book, he estimates that 70% of Americans are unaware of the dire threats now facing us due to the climate and ecological crises. (http://billmckibben.com/). I’m recommending Bill’s book and the work of Naomi Klein to everyone. (https://naomiklein.org)
The collusion of the American mainstream media with the fossil fuel industry, Wall Street, and other enormous financial interests has kept us uniformed for far too long. If we’re only listening to FOX, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, OPB, and other corporate media — rather than independent media resources who receive no funding from the industries and individuals who are destroying the planet — then it’s likely that we have no idea of what’s truly happening and the urgency that we unite and act.
I’ve written about this many times, including this letter to NPR/PBS: http://mollystrongheart.blogspot.com/…/my-letter-to-npr-and….
The world’s climate scientists estimate that at best we have less than 12 years to transform our economic system, our belief systems and values, and our way of life — which has long been based on the ideology of domination culture and the patriarchal, neoliberal, predatory capitalist system that is destroying life on Earth — and instead unite to birth a nation and a world that cares for life rather than destroys it.
This is another excellent resource that illuminates the roots of our peril and what we can do about it: https://www.kosmosjournal.org/…/breaking-out-of-the-domina…/.
It is also incredibly important that we research deeply each presidential candidate’s plan to address the climate emergency. As we do, we’ll see that there is only one candidate whose plan, very much including the funding, matches the enormity of the crisis. This is why both Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben endorse and support Bernie Sanders and the movements which will bring about the dramatic changes that we need to save ourselves.
This is the imperative of our time. Everything we love and cherish is at stake. The eyes of the children are watching. — Molly


By Pam Wright

Nearly 90 percent of Americans are unaware that there is a consensus within the scientific community that human-caused climate change is real and threatens the planet, a new report says.

According to the report published last week by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, only 13 percent of Americans were able to correctly identify that more than 90 percent of all climate scientists have concluded that climate change is real.

The annual survey of 1,266 adults compiled in May and June failed to note that it is actually 97 percent of climate scientists that concur that human-caused global warming is happening. 

The most common but incorrect response from the survey was that there is a 50 percent consensus among the scientific community that global warming is real and human-caused. One in four responded that they did not know.

"Public misunderstanding of the scientific consensus – which has been found in each of our surveys since 2008 – has significant consequences," the researchers note in the Yale-GMU report.

"Other research has identified public understanding of the scientific consensus as an important 'gateway belief' that influences other important beliefs," the researchers said, including the beliefs that global warming is happening, is human caused, is a serious problem and is solvable.

Researchers also noted that this lack of understanding hinders support for action. 
On the other hand, seven in 10 Americans do believe climate change is happening, which nearly matches the highest level (71 percent) recorded since the survey began 2008. Over half of Americans (58 percent) believe global warming is mostly human-caused — the highest number recorded since the survey began — while 30 percent say it is mostly a natural occurrence.