Friday, July 29, 2011

How I Think The Political War Against The Right Wing Fundamentalists Should Be Fought [Includes info on the Koch Brothers]

 So, how should the new extreme rhetoric coming out of the right be fought?

The simple answer is that you determine the source of the rhetoric, the one or ones whom people tend to revolve around. Once the source has been identified (with proof) then this source must be neutralized and you have to make sure that this source is completely neutralized. That doesn't mean you have to kill them (but if you are attacked you should be ready to defend yourself). Also, if you are scared of dying then your moves will be filled with fear. It is better to determine a point of attack and then hold that point no matter what (unless you are wrong, then you adjust your actions according to the truth). A political 'enemy' is neutralized, not by attacking their followers, but by making sure their power is gone and will never, ever return. This is done by isolating them and their lies from their followers.

Before reading this post any further familiarize yourself with how a cultlike following can be created, how this connects to the Tea Party and the New Republican Party [As opposed to the Old Republicans or True Republicanism].

The extracts in this article are from the book The 48 Laws of Power is for anyone "interested in gaining, observing, or defending against power." In other words, to defend against power you have to understand it and then apply them. Keep in mind that any political war fought by people interested in peace MUST be a defensive war.

To win this is the path that must be followed...

1. Find the source of power.

2. Understand how the propaganda works

3. Strike and isolate the leader(s)

4. Expose all connections and secrets in a public way so there is no misunderstanding as to the guilt of the leaders of this source of power.

My view is not the same as one political institute...
Recognize that the Right is a complex movement. No one organization “controls” the Right. No single funder is “behind” the Right. Some large organizations areimportant, but many others appear to be more influential than they really are. Recognize that there are multiple networks of organizations and funders with differing and sometimes competing agendas. Find out as much as you can about the groups you see. Incorporate this information in your educational work. It is helpful in organizing to know a great deal about your opponents. Be alert to evidence of the Right’s “new racism.” The Right has replaced simple racist rhetoric with a more complex, “colorblind” political agenda which actually attacks the rights of people of color. See the Resources sections of this kit for some assistance in your research.

I think the above reasoning is wrong.

To fight a political war you need to first understand that every group has a source of power.

As explained in the 48 Laws of Power...
In the past, an entire nation would be ruled by a king and his handful of ministers. only elite had any power to play with. Over the centuries, power has gradually become more and more diffused and democratized. this has created, however, a common misperception that groups no longer have centers of power - that power is spread out and scattered among many people.
Actually, however, power has changed in its numbers but not in its essence. There may be a few mighty tyrants commanding the power of life and death over millions, but there remain thousands of petty tyrants ruling smaller realms, and enforcing their will through indirect power games, charisma, and so on. In every group, power is concentrated in the hands of one or two people, for this is one area in which human nature will never change: People will congregate around a single strong personality like planets orbiting a sun.
To labor under the illusion that this kind of power center no longer exists is to make endless mistakes, waste energy and time, and never hit the target. Powerful people never waste time. Outwardly they may play along with game - pretending that power is shared among many - but inwardly they keep their eyes on the inevitable few in the group who hold the cards. These are the ones they work on. When troubles arise, then look for the underlying cause, the single strong character who started the stirring and whose isolation or banishment will settle the waters again. Page 363, The 48 Laws of Power

Power still functions the same way as it has throughout our history. The rules are the same. You either play by the rules or you are food for the one that does.

The above institute also recommends talking and avoiding demonization hoping to win over the new republicans with reason and goodwill. The problem with this approach is that anyone who disagrees with the new republican philosophy is automatically 'the other' and being nice just makes them think that this is some sort of ploy. Cult followers are people who quote slogans and refuse to reason, believing that only with the implementation of their vague lies will there be a return to a 'golden age' or future paradise. [Read the post on cult-like behavior and fundamentalism and true republicanism ].

To end a political war, First, you have to genuinely hold the moral high ground (not just espouse morality). Second, you need to establish a base of support. Third you need to take out the leader. Bear in mind that in our civilized modern age you should be able to do this with an isolation tactic, if your only solution is physical violence then you don't hold the moral high ground. If someone else attacks you with violence and you defend against it, then you do hold the moral highground, at least for that debate.

The basic law is this...
Law 42: Strike The Shepherd And The Sheep Will Scatter
Trouble can often be traced to a single strong individual - the stirrer, the arrogant underling, the prisoner of goodwill. If you allow such people room to operate, others will succumb to their influence. Do not wait for the troubles they cause to multiply, do not try to negotiate with them - they are irredeemable. Neutralize their influence by isolating or banishing them. Strike at the source of the trouble and the sheep will scatter.

For Example:  
Near the end of the sixth century B.C., the city state of Athens overthrew the series of petty tyrants who had dominated its politics for decades. It established instead a democracy that was to last over a century, a democracy that became the source of its power and its proudest achievement. But as the democracy evolved, so did a problem the Athenians had never faced: How to deal with those who did not concern themselves with the cohesion of a small city surrounded by enemies, who did not work for its greater glory, but thought of only themselves and their own ambitions and petty intrigues? The Athenians understood that these people, if left alone, would sow dissension, divide the city into factions, and stir up anxieties, all of which could lead to the ruin of their democracy.

The Athenians solution was to get everyone in the city to write down the name of someone they wanted banished and the highest number of votes to any person would get him banned for 10 years. This practice stopped when a powerless citizen with nothing but 'being an irritation' as his offense, was banished because the Athenians felt that their practice had been demeaned.

The Ancient Athenians had certain qualities in their citizens which made their democracy strong...
The ancient Athenians had social instincts unknown today - the passage of centuries has blunted them. Citizens in the true sense of the word, the Athenians sensed the dangers posed by asocial behavior, and saw how such behavior often disguises itself in other forms: the holier-then-thou attitude that silently seeks to impose its standards on others; overweening ambition at the expense of the common good; the flaunting of superiority; quite scheming; terminal obnoxiousness. Some of these behaviors would eat away at the city's cohesion by creating factions and sowing dissension, others would ruin the democratic spirit by making the common citizen feel inferior and envious. The Athenians did not try to reeducate people who acted in these ways, or to absorb them somehow into the group, or to impose a violent punishment that would only create others problems. The solution was quick and effective: Get rid of them.

The Koch and Murdoch Echo Chambers

No man need despair of gaining converts to the extravagant hypothesis who has art enough to represent it in favorable colors. 
David Hume. 1711 - 1776

The law...
Law 31: Control The Options: Get Others To Play With the Cards You Deal
The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.

By putting out many different people and personalities and books around one theme, no matter what your base chooses, they will be following the path that you want their views to take.

 Senator Bernie Sanders explains the Koch Echo chamber...

Foundations: Cato Institute + Mercatus Center + Reason Foundation + Heritage Foundation

An example of a business echo chamber from one of Rupert Murdoch's marketing campaign...

[Note: The examples above and below provide even more reason for regulation of media oligopolies]

The Heritage Foundation is a part of the Koch Echo Chamber video above. They are also the ones who came up with the most unusual report...

A first world country is defined by having a higher standard of living than, say, a third world country.

In economics you measure the standard of living of its citizens by how much wealth they own compared to other nations. If there is more (which is what 'economic development' seeks to achieve) then there is a higher standard of living. Less wealth means lower standard of living. In the tools for measuring the level of chances of getting despotism in society the larger the disparity between the wealthy and poor the greater the chances of a tyrannical government taking hold. A tyrannical government is never answerable to anything they do and can commit crimes without ever being investigated.

Above: 'Conservative' Echo Chamber through Murdoch's Network (using multiple books on one view, talking about one perspective ONLY on a network owned by one man, i.e. the new republican party is an invention using multiple media channels all owned by the same group. Ironically, or perhaps, intelligently, the 'left' (i.e. the networks NOT owned by Murdoch) are grouped together as having a separate agenda thereby creating the 'Us vs. them' dynamic which is very important for creating a cultlike following which is what the new republican party has become as opposed to the true republican party.

The law being followed is this one...
Law 43: Work On The Hearts And Minds Of Others
Coercion creates a reaction that will eventually work against you. You must seduce others into wanting to move in your direction. A person you have seduced becomes your loyal pawn. And the way to seduce others is to operate on their individual psychologies and weaknesses. Soften up the resistant by working on their emotions, playing on what they hold dear and what they fear. Ignore the hearts and minds of others and they will grow to hate you.

Warning: For various reasons sometimes people take 'mercy' on an enemy. To defeat the new 'conservatism', [which is right wing extremism, divided into chunks by the same media guy] you have to keep going till the job is done...

Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally
All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have leaned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: the enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.

As the author explains...
"It is not, a question of murder, it is a question of banishment. Sufficiently weakened and then exiled from your court forever, your enemies are rendered harmless.They have no hope of recovering, insinuating themselves or hurting you. And if they cannot be banished, at least understand that they are plotting against you, and pay no heed to whatever friendliness they feign. your only weapon in such a situation is your own wariness. If you cannot banish them immediately, then plot for the best time to act."

Also, you should note that telling the truth will not be easy and will most certainly NOT be welcome...
Law 32: Play To People's Fantasies
The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes from disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.
To win this political war you have to be ready to face the anger and ire you will stir up for disturbing peoples sense of order. When people think you should take a break and give 'the poor evil guy a rest', just take the anger, understand thier position [remembering they are either followers or are not grown up enough to 'take the heat'] and keep on attacking, strategically of course, until your goal is reached.

That is how Bush and Cheney got away from any investigation into the largest attacks on the United States mainland in it's history. Something that would have been debated publicly in any democratically run government.

Tips for fighting the new extreme right in the USA;

1. Determine the leader(s) of that movement. Even a visible leader can be a patsy that is why you have to look deep. You have to look under the surface of appearances to the source.

2. Don't bother arguing with the followers. Followers are by their nature 'true believers' some are opportunists taking advantage of an opportunity to get power or take out pent up anger/insecurity on others. But most really do believe in what they repeat. And if rhetoric condoning violence is part of the movement then violence will occur (especially if they lose an election). Be nice to the true believers, make them friends by putting aside politics between you two if possible.

3. Strike the source or the 'shepherd'. Be relentless and merciless. Once you are secure and you have gauged it safe to attack the shepherd then begin and don't rest till the source has been permanently isolated. This will cause the followers of this source to scatter.

4. Always hold the moral high ground. That way even if you lose in the short run you will probably win in the long run as long as information isn't completely controlled by the source of the political problems. [Yes, you may not win if you fight a follower AND with the violent rhetoric, without a clear source to isolate, you risk getting physically attacked. If it gets to that point you need to have the courage to face it and defend yourself if necessary... OR you can skip the anger and strike the shepherd].

Those who seek to achieve things should show no mercy. 
Kautilya, Indian Philosopher, thirdcentury B.C.

Recommended further reading:

The Koch Brothers involved in water politics

Continued problems with the phone hacking scandal

Not - Breaking News: Covert Operations The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. by Jane Mayer

Monday, July 25, 2011

[Modern Fundamentalism] - Law 27: Play On People's Need to Believe to Create A Cultlike Following (part 1)

I previously outlined a way of looking at modern fundamentalism here:

Definition of Fundamentalism: For fundamentalism to exist you have to take a side so completely that the 'other' side (whatever that side may be) MUST be beaten at all costs for survival.

The above is most certainly an attitude shared by Anders Behring Breivik as well as some others...


Anders Breivik's favorite American pundits show no shame in blaming liberals, Muslims for right-wing terror.

Some individuals in hate groups will decide to attack on their own some will work in small groups. Muslims are in a bad economic environment and a large part of global population with historical grievances. This is being duplicated in the west with the currant economic conditions and, fascinatingly enough, a recreation of history so that there may be historical grievances to fight against!

Scholars have criticized Barton for presenting facts out of context or in misleading ways, but that hasn’t stopped him from promoting his theories through books, television, and, yes, the textbooks that will teach the next generation of Americans. He promotes conspiracy theories about elites hiding the truth from average Americans in order to undermine the nation from within. Last summer, he declared that liberal and media attacks on the Tea Party were just like attacks on Jesus. In February, Barton spoke at the Connect 2011 Pastors Conference, where he said that Christians needed to control the culture and media so that “guys that have a secular viewpoint cannot survive.” Said Barton, “If the press lacks moral discrimination, it’s because we haven’t been pushing our people to chop that kind of news off.”

The above is about a man named David Barton who likes to take two or more separate facts and put them together. Then he markets them.

What Europeans need to realize is that he has allot of influence in American politics, guides the direction of fundamentalist Christianity and says stuff like 'just like attacking Jesus' (see quote above) which inflames his followers and any other Christian who is not aware of the facts (i.e. doesn't read), thus his movement, and with it the cultlike New Republican (GOP) party keeps growing. If the democrats in the States win there will be a great deal of genuine anger and conspiracy beliefs and, probably, more death. If Republicans win it could be worse. A great deal of their power comes from making some of their leaders untouchable. If they can be investigated internationally (as Obama doesn't have the political power or desire to expose certain war crimes etc.. that are already proven all over the place - including my blogs)

The rest of this post is a quick exposition in how Fox News is promoting political fundamentalism (which includes Christian fundamentalism).

Law 27: People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power. [From "The 48 Laws of Power"].

"emphasize enthusiasm over clear thinking."

In the above video you will see how lies are used to inflame passions and encourage the blooming of the Tea party, while the video below proves that they were lying...

Also, this video above is from August 17, 2009 and The Obama as Hitler campaign had already begun. Also, with million of people without health insurance, Fox News was promoting the lie that 'America has the best healthcare system in the world' - A statement that defies the facts - World Healthcare system ranks USA healthcare at 37. (just 2 places above Cuba!)

Many lies from Fox News have been confirmed by the politics fact checking website...

Jon Stewart is considered to be a 'liberal activist' by Fox News so the full dynamic is played out on the daily show for all to see so I'm using allot of their videos to illustrate the method of cult creation and maintenance.

Step 1: Keep It Vague: Keep It Simple

"Done right, the combination of vague promises, cloudy but alluring concepts, and fiery enthusiasm will stir people's souls and a group will form around you."

"As a corollary to its vagueness your appeal should also simple. Most people's problems have complex causes: deep-rooted neurosis, interconnected social factors, roots that go way back in time and are exceedingly hard to unravel. Few, however, have the patience to deal with this; most people want to hear that a simple solution will cure their problems. The ability to offer this kind of solution will give you great power and build you a following. Instead of the complicated explanations of real life, return to the primitive solutions of our ancestors, to good old country remedies, to mysterious panaceas."

On one side, in the realm of economics, the new GOP slogans of balance the budget is simple and doesn't require any analysis of history of the intricacies of economic planning.

On the other hand Glenn Beck is one of the masters or promoting fear (which leads to anger... and violence? Obviously.) the following is a post I wrote a long time ago...

Beck says sarcastically "we are fighting our way back into the socialism we never had" implying that unions and people in unions are socialists. [Note: Socialism is defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production - to say that unions somehow control all means of production is absurd... and to imply that they are going to take over the government is probably not what he intended?]

He says, 'traditional values that we know and love and are trying desperately to hold on to' implying that everything any particular listener cherishes is under attack and this creates a need to respond - if he is wrong then what he has actually done is to create a psychological imbalance that could lead to problems.[Click here to watch video]
[Note: This is an idea that could have spread to many right wing groups through many different routes].

The following is a case of being too specific (a mistake in following this law, which resulted in patch up propaganda), which is understandable as Chris Wallace appears to be a true believer in the conservative faith and therefore wasn't thinking strategically.

2 minutes 6 seconds :

Stewart: "You believe that Fox news is the ideological equivalent of MSNBC News?"

Wallace: "I think we are the counter-weight. I think that they have a liberal agenda and that we tell the other side of the story." [Notice the use of "Other"]

Notice the number of fields of knowledge Stewart cites as part of Fox News being "right wing resin" - In particular he mentions that Fox News sees Science, History, facts as against the 'conservatives' i.e. a comedic perspective based on Fox News broadcasts. (click links for further proof on these statements).

As a consequence he had to do a retraction, which was a very bad one but enough for a true believer as all they need is any almost any vague explanation that appears logical and has the word "because" in it [for example: He believes X because of Y, even if it is a lie the explanation is accepted if it is presented by a respected authority figure.]

Around 1 min into the video a Fox News clip begins and Wallace says "I wish I had said the full story" in response to "we tell the other side of the story". The difference, the first is honest the next is either a lawyer idea or a planned line of attack chosen by the editors of the news cast.

About 5 minutes into the video Stewart describes Fox News game, which comes down to, 'if something is in line with Fox News 'conservatism' then it is fair and it it isn't it's liberal bias and if you try to prove them wrong they are being UNFAIRLY persecuted [playing the victim card]

Step 2: Emphasize the Visual and the Sensual over the Intellectual

"Surround yourself with luxury, dazzle your followers with visual splendor, fill their eyes with spectacle. Not only will this keep them from seeing the ridiculousness of your ideas, the holes in your belief system, it will also attract more attention, more followers."

Fox News is well known for having over done graphics and marketing. Sean Hannity's strategy is to use angry rhetoric and shouting down anyone he doesn't agree with (generally). [Creates spectacle, plus he's rich and supports the rich which is enough to dazzle some kinds of people].

Glenn Beck is also a great example of spectacle;

Step 3: Borrow the Forms of Organized Religion to Structure the Group

"The lofty and holy associations of organized religion can be endlessly exploited. Create rituals for your followers; organize them into a hierarchy, ranking them in grades of sanctity, and giving them names and titles that resound with religious overtones; ask them for sacrifices that will fill your coffers and increase your power. To emphasize your gathering's quasi-religious nature, talk and act like a prophet."

The Tea Party protests has the format of a religion. A movement, based on ideology, that requires sacrifices of time and money from its followers with rituals such as buying tea bags and I think I remember some kind of tea boxes stacking event.

Side note: When there is dissension in the ranks then the cult is falling apart, this is the time for escape.

Step 4: Disguise Your Source of Income

"Your followers want to believe that if they follow you all sorts of good things will fall into their lap. By surrounding yourself with luxury you become living proof of the soundness of your belief system. Never reveal that your wealth actually comes from your followers' pockets; instead, make it seem to come from the truth of your methods."

After the Tea Party movement was created, the creators (Fox News) distanced itself acting as if the Tea Party sprang up 'on its own'

About a minute in Newt Gingrich says that the tea party 'kinda sprang up on its own'

Then Stephen Colbert proves that the Tea Party was founded by anchors of Fox News and activism ideas even came from the repub party chairmen.

About 3 minutes into the video Stephen says a bunch of nonsense, mixing various eras from history together with fiction, this is making fun of Glenn Becks theories which are historically and factually inaccurate.

Step 5: Set Up an Us-Verses-Them Dynamic

"First, make sure your followers believe they are part of an exclusive club, unified by a bond of common goals. Then, to strengthen this bond, manufacture the notion of devious enemy out to ruin you. There is a force of nonbelievers that will do anything to stop you. Any outsider who tries to reveal the charlatan nature of your belief system can now be described as a member of this devious force."

[such as playing victim]

They egg each other on to believe that the Social Democrats are guilty of all the horrors we'll come to experience; that immigrants rape and murder and that it's the socialists' fault. It is the fault of Mona Sahlin, former Social Democrat leader, that we will be forced to wear burkas and live under sharia law by 2020. I'm not saying it's wrong to have opinions about immigration, or to protest against the people who really do want Sweden to allow Muslims to have their own courts and laws. I don't think it's right that our borders should be wide open, without any controls – but I utterly reject these reactions. Hatred breeds nothing but hatred.

Creating the 'other': When Chris Wallace appears to be losing the factual argument immediately a 'Us vs. Them/Him' dynamic is created

About a minute of Fox News anchors repeating the same catch phrases again and again, drumming negative perspectives about Stewart into thier viewers (simple yet effective tactic used by Hitler). The race card on such a flimsy case shows desperation... one would think, but if many people believed it, then the flimsy race card was all that was needed!

The move towards terrorism or violent rhetoric...

Fox News gets upset because a democrat used thier own 'Nazi' tactic on them. [After the killing of a judge that possibly was because of an individual inflamed by fundamentalist right wing rhetoric - the lessons of which were either not learned or simply ignored]. In the above

video you will see why so many people believe Fox News anchors are always lieing and not just following a script. The reality is that when you are surrounded by one kind of rhetoric all day, all week, all year then you begin to believe it. Bill O Reilly literally says Ariana Huffington and the Nazi do the same thing but seems to geniunely believe that he is NOT making a comparision between a 'liberal' and the 'Nazis'.

[Was it any surprise that a judge was shot and anothe ralmost killed with this kind of rhetoric? I wasn't surprised by that, the Norway massacre, or the future massacres from both white, black, brown, yellow and purple polka dotted deranged individuals.]

"When you push the demonization of populations, you often end up with violence," —Heidi Beirich, research director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

To combat this demonization some activists are trying to balance the equation but are playing right into the trap of 'Us vs Them' by following tactics that are exact opposite of the cult (following the same tactic is also a trap, different law of power so not applicable here)

Avoid slogans, namecalling, and demonizing members of the Right.
Slogans and sound bites have their place, but they are not sufficient as an organizing strategy. Simple anti-Right slogans do not help people understand why the Right sounds convincing but is wrong. And responding in kind to being called names weakens your position with some of the listeners you are trying to convince. Phrases like “religious political extremists” are labels, not arguments, and often will backfire on the neighborhood and community level.

The above document shows how the democrats have chosen to handle the situation. It shows that they are on the back foot. In other words, lies and ideology are so effective in the states that simple facts can only be promoted as if in a defensive war. Allowing Fox News to control the political landscape with lies is clear indication of the failing American democracy. Ideas exported to Europe should be eradicated before they can take root.

Note: How can the following types of perspectives not lead to violence?



The Republicans' refusal to accept any tax increases to help America out of debt is like a doctor believing strictly in magic to cure a patient.

Phone Hacking Scandal and the 26th Law of Power (part 2)

Remember I had pointed out that in my last post on this topic...
According to the 26th law of power from the book, "The 48 Laws of Power"

Basic Law: "Keep Your Hands Clean: You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cat's-paws to disguise your involvement."


If this was a movie and the whole editorial staff didn't get fired I could see the detective saying. "Not firing the one in charge was your mistake as that person connects you directly to the crime... that and the settlements you made makes this a juicy case..." but, nowadays, you can just close down a building and people are so caught up in names that they associate the name News Of The World with all the wrong deeds done by individuals (i.e. the deeds were done by people NOT a building).

I find this new use of the 26th law of power very disturbing.

Developments since my last post on this topic (Jul 8th)

About 1 week after my post: "Les Hinton, the chief executive of Dow Jones and Rupert Murdoch's right-hand man, resigned from News Corp on Friday night, a statement from the company said. Hinton, who led Murdoch's News International when the phone-hacking allegations first arose, quit hours after Rebekah Brooks, News International's chief executive, also resigned."

Getting rid of two top executives is a much better use of the 26th Law of Power. However, he made some mistakes in implementing the scapegoat technique to get out of trouble (and not just with the huge delay in executing the firings). Here is more about the 26th Law of Power (i.e. when using it is inappropriate)
Reversal: The cat's paw and scapegoat must be used with extreme caution and delicacy. They are like screens that hide your own involvement in dirty work from the public; if at any moment the screen is lifted and you are seen as the manipulator, the puppet master, the whole dynamic turns around - your hand will be seen everywhere, and you will be blamed for misfortunes you may have had nothing to do with. Once the truth is revealed, events will snowball beyond your control. [From "The 48 Laws of Power"].

A look at developments and mistakes (with some comments) since July 8th:

"Anne Simpson, the Briton who is in charge of corporate governance at Calpers, said that it was time for change at the company, which gives special voting powers to shares held by the Murdoch family. "News Corp does not have one share one vote. This is a corruption of the governance system. Power should reflect capital at risk. Calpers sees the voting structure in a company as critical. The situation is very serious and we're considering our options. We don't intend to be spectators – we're owners," she said. While the Murdochs own 12% of the company, their special B shares give them voting rights over 40% of the company. Calpers holds 6.4m shares."

Behaviour pattern: Like to keep control over decision making in his company.

The loss on Friday of Mr Hinton, a senior US-based adviser who has worked for Mr Murdoch for 52 years, and Ms Brooks, a pivotal figure in his UK operation and close family friend, capped a second tumultuous week for the News Corp chairman.

Claims not to have any involvement of the decision making even though he obviously likes to keep control and has an extremely long family friend relationship. (i.e. the involvement and behaviour pattern is such that ones the scapegoat technique is used appropriately you have to take a 'hit' or take responsibility of some sort)

"Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for new media ownership rules to limit Rupert Murdoch's "dangerous" and "unhealthy" concentration of power. He told the Observer Mr Murdoch's large market share led to "abuses of power".

True. concentration of wealth and influence in the hand of of a few (or one) can lead to abuse - Proof of Murdoch's abuse of power is here.

The following extracts are from Murdoch's questioning (transcript is located here.):
"Q: Why was no one fired in April, when the company took responsibility for large-scale phone hacking?

RM says people in the company were guilty. "We have to find them and we have to deal with them appropriately."

JM says most of those responsible had long since left the company." ----- "• Rupert Murdoch denies overall responsibility for the phone hacking affair.

Q: Who is responsible?

RM says the people he trusted, and the people they trusted.

He says he worked with Les Hinton for 52 years. He would trust him with his life.

(It is not clear from this whether he thinks he has now been let down by Hinton, or whether he is saying he still trusts Hinton, but that Hinton was let down by others.)" .
From a strategy perspective... he's waiting to see what is proved against whom before he takes sides.

The mistake he made is simple;

There are moments when it is advantageous to not disguise your involvement or responsibility, but rather to take the blame yourself for some mistake. If you have power and are secure in it, you should sometimes play the penitent: With a sorrowful look, you ask for forgiveness from those weaker than you. [The 48 Laws of Power]

Rupert only used the above to the degree of saying that his being questioned, 'was the most humble moment' of his life. [Ironically that's what the Dowler family called him! "Hours after that statement, Rupert Murdoch met the parents and sister of Dowler in London. "He was very humbled and very shaken and very sincere," said Mark Lewis, the Dowler family lawyer." ]

This mistake is illustrated in the following interview;


‎1. 'People in Britain don't care about the royals or celebrity hackings' - so using an emotional card to push through public action on basic laws (as public knowledge can lead to public action; something that faith/ideology based political activists are excellent at) .

2. 'Apologized for everything and took responsibility for nothing' - check for abuse of the law of power - theme taking a short term hit for long term security. [Another mistake of the '48 Laws of Power' by Murdoch - Its time for his son to takeover] .

3. Murdoch's fox news is also using the 'he apologized so let him go' tactic.

Other interesting things Rupert said at his hearing:

RM 'The law should not be broken only campaigning for change' - i.e. Rupert doesnt believe anyone should break the law except as far as campaigning to change it goes. Which is fine but look what he's campaign contributions go towards...

"Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal."

Random comment: It irritates me that on one hand there are honorable illegals and on the other had there are newly made citizens in the US such as Murdoch. (Note: I'm indifferent to immigration issues except when it comes to Murdoch).

Future look out: RM ' i am the best person to clean this up' - It seems that RM follows the laws to some extant (excluding morality - see above) - With a change in laws requiring 'Truth in News for an informed populace' may encourage them to clean up Fox News?

1. "Notice how headlines always start on the left" - The joke makes a non-nonsensical connection of writing to 'left'. - Later shows Fox News doing the same thing [very clever!]

‎2. 1 min 28sec: Fox News has started reporting on the scandal!

‎3. 2 mins : "the news of the world is a hacking scandal that can't be denied [coughs] - [interrupted segment?] - "shouldn't we get beyond the scandal to the issue of hacking... bank of america has been hacked into, are they getting the same kinda attention they were getting back a year ago that newscorp is getting today" - A. Hackers wern't caught in the bank hacking incident, B. In this case it is the company doing the hacking (not a hacker doing a company) - This brings attention back on newscorp and seems to insist (in a round about way) that it should be investigated more as , for the first time, a hacker has been identified all the way to the top... could be a war going on in fox news?

4. "Both victims of being in the sentence with the word 'hack'" - As was the joke of 'left' with writing from 'left', above.

5. Accuses fox news anchors of being hacks when they are actually actors and actresses though they sometimes mess up. Nowadays, they are being trained much better... click here to watch an anchor compare a super size McDonalds meal to 'eating a Live Raccoon'. (Note: A raccoon is a rather large and possibly dangerous animal in the wild of the US).

Side Note:

1. ..."simple story, ma and pa owned newspaper" hacked dead girls phone.

‎2. Stewart, "well, i guess if the guys who were bribed don't think there is anything suspicious in the death of the guy who blew the whistle on the company providing the bribes, I'm satisfied." a. Parody of US citizen : This is a common attitude in the states where people will often believe most, if not everything, a particular authority figures says. In Pakistan its the opposite.

Friday, July 8, 2011

Breaking News: Phone Hacking Scandal and The 26th Law of Power

 This post concerns the British Tabloid that was involved in the recent hacking scandal. [Note: This also connects with the case for regulation of news media.]

There is a timeline of events here, that suggest there was some hanky panky going on in the background (i.e. payments being made for keeping people happy/silent) such as this one;
January 2007 – News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire are convicted of conspiracy to hack into phone voice mails of royals and are jailed. Andy Coulson, the paper's editor, claims to be unaware of hacking but still resigns.

July 2007 – Goodman and Mulcaire sue the tabloid for wrongful dismissal. Goodman receives £80,000 and Mulcaire receives an undisclosed amount. (click here to read more)

How can you get money for wrongful dismissal if you are guilty? Well, the story is still breaking...for example;

One of the Murdoch's has this to say, "The Company paid out-of-court settlements approved by me. I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so. This was wrong and is a matter of serious regret."

To say that making a payment was wrong, after such a large time period, is unusual.

And this, "We have also admitted liability in civil cases. Already, we have settled a number of prominent cases and set up a Compensation Scheme, with cases to be adjudicated by former High Court judge Sir Charles Gray. Apologising and making amends is the right thing to do."

There are still bugs to work out with asking questions and understanding business deals, however, since lie detector tests are allowed in civil suits, I think it's a good idea for citizens to take advantage of this and thoroughly interrogate any suspects associated with the invasion of privacy laws. (It won't happen, but I wanted to say this anyways).

On a side note ... or more accurately, something more directly related to the art of politics...

About 22 seconds into the video...

Notice that the entire staff is new (except for 3 people) - which means all the people involved in the hacking scandal have left.

According to the 26th law of power from the book, "The 48 Laws of Power"

Basic Law: "Keep Your Hands Clean: You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cat's-paws to disguise your involvement."

Shutting down the newspaper, as if to blame an 'institution' or more accurately to blame a newspaper headquarters for any misdeeds done, thus wiping your hands clean.

To make this law work properly you have to "Conceal your mistakes - Have a scapegoat around to take the blame" as the author explains on page 201, "Our good name and reputation depend more on what we conceal than on what we reveal. Everyone makes mistakes, but those who are truly clever manage to hide them, and to make sure someone else is blamed. A convenient scapegoat should always be kept around for such moments."

If you watch the above video you will notice that the original wrong doers have all left. And one of the top executives, a woman by the name of Rebekah Brooks...has an interesting history with Murdoch...
In March 2003 she courted controversy -- and hinted at the scandal to come -- when, appearing before a government committee, she admitted that her paper had paid police officers for information. 
Brooks held the Sun post until 2009 when she was handpicked for the role of News International chief executive by the paper's owner, media magnate Rupert Murdoch.
The pair had been close for many years: Murdoch is said to treat Brooks like a daughter.

If this was a movie and the whole editorial staff didn't get fired I could see the detective saying. "Not firing the one in charge was your mistake as that person connects you directly to the crime... that and the settlements you made makes this a juicy case..." but, nowadays, you can just close down a building and people are so caught up in names that they associate the name News Of The World with all the wrong deeds done by individuals (i.e. the deeds were done by people NOT a building).

I find this new use of the 26th law of power very disturbing.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Wall Street

In this video you will see Patrick Mchenry go red as he claims that Elizabeth Warren is 'making this up'. This started a huge controversy, in some circles...

... so, I decided to visit Patrick McHenry's facebook page, along with a bunch of other people who seemed to have decided the same thing and it ended up becoming a fascinating exploration into modern politics...

Here are some of the links to conversations:

About Reagan and Unions

An amazingly nonsensical discussion from my comment of 'Warren is advocating for the Middle class'.

I was very impressed by the skillful use of half truths;

What he means here is - SINCE - Obama came to office. This is not a history lesson folks. This is politics. [Note: This was not a lie just a focus on a short time period.]

Sigh! What he means above is that she didn't cover everything that happened. Amazing! [Note: I didn't realize till later that this was another political charade.]

This sort of half truth charade is common in politics:

My conclusion on Patrick McHenry's facebook page was based on a careful observation of the interactions of the commentators, the random beliefs thrown about and the surprisingly fierce insults being hurled, making this look like some playground brawl more than a political discussion.(Conclusion below)
OK. I'm done with my research. I am now certain that because of an educational system that didn't teach critical thinking skills, politics has now become a shouting match of insults bereft of any proof or respect. For others, still willing to learn, here is an overview of what despotism is from Encyclopedia Britannica . You will notice that respect, critical thinking skills, less tax burden on the lower income groups, and economic distribution of wealth (and since wealth can buy votes and media exposure - greater wealth = greater power), is all covered in this old but forgotten Encyclopedia Britannica video.

1. Notice how 100 cents on the dollar is paid for one institution and not another. This has to do with which institutions are considered to be of more risk to the economy, i.e. systematic risk. A bunch of regulations to control these risks were proposed. Yet, based on the above video, it seems that the shenanigans continue. :-(

"Almost everyone agrees that our banks need federal money to avoid even more calamity, but how much is too much, and who's watching how they spend it?"

The answer to above question is, at the moment, no one.

2. Notice that the FED was at the front-lines of these 'negotiations'.

3. Notice that big banks have gotten bigger - bigger means they have more financial resources concentrated around them. This means that they are no longer "too big to fail" but "much much too big to fail".

Now, take a look at this series of thoughts...

1. Reagan supported unions;

2.Hypocrisy concerning Wall Street;

3. Elizabeth Warren can never be allowed to investigate Wall Street.

Not gonna happen: Elizabeth Warren would terrify Wall Street and couldn’t be confirmed; Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz got a lot of mentions in my Twitter feed, but I doubt either of them would want the job, and neither could be confirmed; Michael Bloomberg is an interesting choice, but he’s too ambitious, with too much of an independent power base, for the White House to trust him.

Background Information:

Warren's Interview with Stewart Part 1

Warren's Interview with Stewart Part 2

Warren's Interview with Stewart Part 3

Warren's Interview with Washington Post