What do you get when a deconstructionist joins the mafia ?

An offer you can't understand.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Gangster Capitalism versus Obama

Obama will be defined by the way in which he deals with these realities:
1.) because corporations cannot sign affidavits in court because they "have no conscience to bind them." 2.) because gangsters have no conscience to bind them, 3.) because Reagan, using faux libertarian pretenses of corporate freedom & expansionist national purposes to ensure corporate hegemony in the Caribbean & in the MidEast in the '80's, created his version of neo-corporatism out of what the GOP salvaged & redesigned after the Nixon-Rebezo debacle: Reagonimics reached it's logical conclusion in Noriega-Ollie North: the Iran-Contra 'drugs for arms scandal' 4.) then power dribbled into the hands of Bush-1, GH being the son of a Nazi banker & grandson of an arms dealer, VP-turned-Pres GH was a former CIA boss, whose operatives included Saddam Hussein & Osama Bin Laden 5.) replaced by Clinton neo-liberal (left corporatism) 6.) replaced by Cheney-Bush-2 who developed a virulent strain of gangster capitalism, which was overwhelmingly overthrown 7.) Nov 4. 2008, when the vast majority of Americans voted against the Bush League via Obama-MCain; leaving the Pres.-Elect on the cusp of 8.)the reorganizing of the global economy by right & left corporatists & communists in an age of already organized global gangster capitalists. The solution for Canada should be found in our history: we need to stand for Cooperatve Commonwealth, an expansion of the British Commonwealth based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: into which an individual's rights to water must be enshrined. As for the right & left corporatist union of Harper-Obama it must be met in parliament & in the next election with an environmental opposition united on water rights. It must be the next election issue. Because if the gangster capitalists get hold of the water there will be no conscience to bind them.


kheimbuch said...

The corporatists are too scared to let this become an election issue. In Akron, Ohio, voters stood up to the privatization of the commons:

Here in Guelph, voters are all too familiar with this issue. Getting rid of unaccountable quasi-judicial corporate-biased entities like the OMB would help us have a level playing field against Nestle's exploitative behaviour. Add to this, Harper wants to enshrine 'property rights' into the Charter -- something the masses on preview will support, but will only solidify the corporation's hold on our resources all that much more.

In a general sense however, the big challenge upon which all of this rests lies in the fact that the media is the propaganda tool of the same gangster corporatists. If we could collectively solve the challenge of democratizing access to the media (and similar "modes of production"), the world might still have a chance.

Jerry Prager said...

Thanks for the Akron story, posted it on Canada Votes, Or Not. Water rights need to become a central plank election issue. Force the press to deal with it. A simple symbol of what's actually at stake between the Tar Sands environmentalism of Harper, and genuine common sense.

The Lord of Ábrocen Landmearca said...

I think the real issue here is that you fail to realize that full stops and brackets do not need to be used together for lists. For example, lists can be presented as


But combining them needlessly confuses the issue. When you use the full stop, you imply that the previous list point was a complete sentence, and yet your syntax clearly shows otherwise.

Furthermore, I would disagree that Reganomics reached any kind of "conclusion" in Iran-Contra, logical or not. The time between the implementation of Regan's economic policy and its sudden cessation was just not long enough for it to run it's course. The shifting whims of public opinion meant that it never reached an "end". Iran-Contra was a symptom of political corruption and CIA epistemania, not economic policy.

Jerry Prager said...

So what you're saying my son, is that 1)if anything, Iran Contra was 'a' not 'the' conclusion of Reaganomics because 2)the bank crisis of 2008 is also a conclusion of the ongoing consequence of Reaganomics 3) you think using gangsters to help conduct a transaction involving guns, drugs and lots of cash is political but not economic ?

The Lord of Ábrocen Landmearca said...

See, you're assuming that economics is about the acquisition of money. It's not. Economics is about the movement of market systems, about capital and material. Guns aren't material, they're matériel (ha ha, a pun!) What I'm trying to say is that Iran-Contra was motivated PRIMARILY by a desire to control people, not the creation of wealth for it's puppet mastrers. Well, not economic wealth. They were all already rich.