Untitled Document
In the dreamy future envisioned by Jonathan
Alter of Newsweek, for instance the 2008 election cycle, “open source
politics” will be a determinant and “netroots” political organizers
“may succeed in redesigning our current nominating system.” Alter
attributes this impending blue sky transformation to the internet. “By
definition, the Internet strips big shots of their control of the process, which
is a good thing. Politics is at its most invigorating when it’s cacophonous
and chaotic.” Our current system, the corporate scribe informs us, is
a “dumb system,” and “it’s no longer a question of whether
the Internet will revolutionize American politics, but when.”
However, come 2008, the internet may be well on its way to becoming
cable television with 500 channels and nothing on, as powerful corporate forces
are angling to both control and sanitize the medium of its “cacophonous
and chaotic” nature. For now, however, net neutrality is likely
ensured, as a massive grassroots operation coordinated by MyDD.com and MoveOn.org
has “helped put enough pressure on Judiciary lawmakers to ensure a comfortable
victory [for passage of the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act]. Members
of Congress heard from plenty of their constituents about the importance of
this bill and not one Democrat voted against it,” explains Congressman
John
Conyers.
Regardless of this reprieve, the internet is hardly an effective tool
for reforming our “dumb” election system, a process not as clunky
as Alter and the corporate media would have us believe. For instance, the “cacophonous
and chaotic” internet was unable to prevent the theft of the 2004 election,
thanks to Diebold computerized voting, although the internet served up valuable
resources ex post facto (see the work of Bev
Harris and Black Box Voting).
Moreover, for the elite in firm control of the “dumb election
system” in America, the internet is for now irrelevant, although certainly
a minor thorn in its side. It’s a well established fact global elites
hand-pick presidents, as Clinton was introduced “to world leaders at their
annual Bilderberg gathering in Germany in 1991,” as Marc
Fisher wrote for the Washington Post in early 1998. “All recent presidents,
except the current George W. Bush, have been linked, either directly or by involvement
with Bilderberg’s brother group, the Trilateral Commission. The two groups
have interlocking leadership and a common agenda. Here are some past presidents
who have been connected…. Jerry Ford, Bilderberg; Jimmy Carter, Trilateral;
Ronald Reagan, a critic of the Trilateralists until entering the White House,
where he held a reception for them; Bush the Elder, Trilateral; and Bill Clinton,
Bilderberg,” notes James
P. Tucker Jr. for the American Free Press.
As the “election” of 2004 demonstrated, the “dumb system”
is so malleable and open to abuse a gaggle of Straussian neocons, with more
than a little help from Republican operatives, were able to throw the election.
Bush and the Straussian neocons may not be strictly aligned with the traditional
globalists (instead, the latter are neoliberals, proponents of neoliberalism,
who are in fact not “liberal,” in the sense of classic liberalism,
i.e., John Locke and the founders), but at the end of the day their objectives
are more similar than divergent—global economic and political control
(Straussians fantasize more about the military aspect of this than the neolibs,
who prefer back room deals and “color” revolutions a la George Soros,
who may be considered an emblematic neolib).
Jonathan Alter may hold out hope for an effervescent future, where elections
are reformed and democratic from the bottom up, and assign special significance
to the role of a “cacophonous and chaotic” internet. However, the
globalists—who incidentally own the propaganda, er news organization where
Alter draws a paycheck—are not about to accept serious tampering with
the “dumb system” and allow sincerely open and free elections. Alter
has it wrong, as should be expected—the role of the internet is to provide
a platform for the dissemination of information, sans corporate filter, and
also provide a vehicle for activism, as the above example of the Internet Freedom
and Nondiscrimination Act demonstrates. In addition to monopolizing the internet,
corporate interest are keen to sanitize it of truth seekers and alternative
voice.
No, the internet will not reform the “dumb” election process, not
directly. It may, however, be utilized as a highly effective communication and
organizational tool in any effort to finally depose and oust the globalists
of both stripe, be they Straussian neocon or “free market” (unhampered
thievery) neoliberal.
Of course, this will necessitate a significant change in the population at
large, as most people are more interested in American Idol contestants and the
meaningless debate centered around Britney Spears and if she did or did not
drop her baby. Short of marching en masse on Washington with pitchforks and
buckets of tar and feather in hand (as our ancestors were wont to do), nothing
will change, or rather little will change, and we will realize but small and
temporary victories, as in the probable passage of the Internet Freedom and
Nondiscrimination Act.
It’s going to take more than a million man (and woman) march—it
will take tens of millions. Make no mistake, however—our rulers, when
push finally comes to shove, are as ruthless and murderous as their counterparts
in China, rolling troops into Tiananmen Square, busting heads and slaughtering
innocents.