Any evidence?

Any evidence?

Bree "I agreed with the majority of your article, what I feel you didn't substantiate was how Jimmy Dore & Alex Jones are fake indy journalists funded by the same oligarchy as the Atlantic Council. Both covered Occupy if I recall, Jimmy in support. So, I need more evidence personally."

I received this in response to Internet Censorship. I immediately removed any reference to Jimmy Dore, I had made a mistake. I listened to Jimmy on Jeremy Corbyn, and he was sound although in the UK Corbyn is attacked as antisemitic for his continued pro-Palestinian position rather than for his attack on bankers. Sadly no-one would have read my mistake as so few people read what I write, but it was rather shamefully careless on my part - I had confused Jimmy Dore as some right-wing jock without checking.

Bree wanted some evidence substantiated, and her request has prompted this blogpost. I have no evidence - no irrefutable facts, so if that's what you want don't read on.

Before I go into this I must explain my view of government, they are puppets. I describe the governments in this world as 1%-satrapies, puppets to the 1%. Do I justify this? Only by observation, I have no evidence. The only way this can be judged or measured is when you examine government policy and ask the question "who benefits?" Now if I listen to what the politicians say, I hear liberal rhetoric or vaguely-disguised racist rhetoric, but none of them stand up and say "I am doing this because I get kickbacks from the 1%" - even though in the US their PACs are full of 1%-money. And even though in the US there is Citizen's United which ensures that elections are controlled by the 1% - except for the occasional candidate who refuses PAC money and does what they can with democratic crowdfunding - money from the people. Is there a 1%-satrapy? Yes. Is there evidence? Yes, all around you. Is there evidence? No, I have no mathematical proof.

When I talk about internet funding, my answer is similar. The overall internet is greatly influenced by 1%-funding, blogs however are not necessarily.

Let me examine a recent phenomenon - recent within the last 10 years I guess. Towards the latter part of the 20th century and the earlier part of this century climate change was a big issue. Throughout this time there had been COP talks, they have reached COP24 and done nothing. There was a time when the US was embarrassed by being isolated in its refusal to ratify treaties because of 1%-pressure in their own countries. Then came the Koch Brothers and Climate Denial money that reached a "high point" when Trump-puppet withdrew from the Paris climate accord. They invested and it is now government policy, that is a strong link of influence.

If Fred R W Blowhard has a regular podcast on climate denial he requires money - because he needs to live. Does that money come from the Koch Brothers? Whilst there isn't a memo I would say indirectly yes. Here DeSmog have shown how more mainstream blowhards have been funded by organisations like the Heartland Institute who are connected to Koch money. Possibly Fred R W Blowhard funding cannot be connected to Heartland or any other organisation, but he gets his money from like-minded people. There is a chain of these like-minded people that leads back to the Koch Brothers and the oil industry. Because I cannot provide the links in the chain does not mean the chain doesn't exist; what it does mean is that there is plausible deniability. But we can use our powers of observation to know that the chain exists. Prior to the Koch Brothers money there was no climate denial, now there is. Just because we don't know the links in the chain doesn't mean the chain doesn;t exist.

We all have opinions, some more informed than others, some held more vehemently than others. But what most of these people with opinions don't have is time and money. At 66 I have opinions, at 46 I had opinions; at 66 I can write - here, at 46 my days were spent teaching and recovering from work - occasionally writing in the holidays. At 66 I have time and limited money, at 46 I had money but no time or energy. This is the reality, it is not the lack of opinions but the lack of time and money. The money that the Koch Brothers invested in climate denial targetted only one set of people, I call them MAWPs, people arrogant enough to believe in a theory that has no scientific basis and is refuted by the scientific community. Koch money would go into Fox, Heartland Institute and eventually Fred R W Blowhard. This professor has his tenure for life, a tenure that without oil money investment would probably have been in doubt. I am sure his science is false but my science is not good enough to debunk it. But I don't believe he thinks he is necessarily lying either - I doubt that he considers himself a fake, it is his opinion coinciding with Koch money that has earned him the "Arthur B Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy". And when MAWPs hear his opinions their arrogance latches on, and we have a climate denial movement. We have a funded movement. This unknowable chain is the influence of money.

When my activism first started there was no internet, there was only mainstream media MSM. Any information we got came from books (controlled by 1% publishers mostly) or comrades speaking. Whilst there were the occasional whistleblowers, one of my favourites was John Stockwell, we had to exist on analysis. We had hoped that the internet would move us away from that with open access to information, but afraid of that information there has been 1%-money used to create confusion on the internet. How do I know? Who benefits with all the confusion? Whilst liberals and the right sling names at each other, the 1% deregulates those regulations that protect the planet and people from 1%-exploitation. Can I find the chain that links them? No. Does that chain exist? Yes. How do I know? Because I can see it working. Observation. Not evidence of the chain but observation of the results.

This funding does not exist just to create climate denial but it is pervasive. Jane Mayer calls it "Dark Money", and George Monbiot calls it the "Dark Money Network". Dark Money pays for the swamp that Trump-puppet talked about. The MAWPs were angry at the swamp but have been sold a bill of goods by Trump-puppet so don't see how he has increased the swamp. Maybe there is some evidence in these books, I haven't read them, but I doubt if the evidence will be that strong because the 1% want plausible deniability. There is an interesting movie on Dark Money in Montana.

The George Soros smearing is also an indication as to how their funding works. I know nothing of Soros but the power and influence of what is attributed to him is how the 1% funds. Hillary who for me was just a typical Wall Street politician was attacked for using the same tricks the 1% funding uses - foundations, charity etc. Yet another indication as to what is done. But we cannot see the chain so there is plausible deniability.

AIN and intellectual dark web have appeared justifying much that is right wing, definitely attacking collective action. I looked into Jordan Peterson (look for links with warnings here). I don't agree with much that he has to say, think his ideas are dangerous but he is not a liar - he believes what he says. He has no trouble getting funding for his books, books presenting ideas that support the system the 1% has created without focussing on where the money goes. When you attack the 1%-system you are not as likely to get a book deal as if you defend it. Logic. A chain but no evidence. If you observe the nature of books you will see a leaning to the right, but the publishers will say that's what sells - ignoring the impact of marketing on what sells; a little influence at the top plus the market(ing) and concomitant factors that support this influence is sufficient to make it happen. Conspiracy theory - yes, evidence - only observation, proof - none. Simply truth.

With regards to factual accountability what is the situation that we have now? We have people educated in schools who expect to have evidence to support any claims such as the 1%-satrapy, the funded climate denial campaign, the dark money network, intellectual dark web, etc. Plausible deniability is key to understanding this demand for evidence. We live in democracies. Our countries fight wars and people still vote for these governments. Why? Plausible deniability. Each war has some token excuse, fight for democracy, search for Bin Laden; these are sufficient excuses for Trump-puppet to drop the MOAB, or for the British government to spend huge amounts of money on drones. When people stand up and say the wars are for MIC profit and control of oil, these plausible excuses offer people the excuse to justify their voting for their own greed. Plausible deniability is enough. People know the power and influence of the 1%, look how quickly Occupy became popular once OWS started - despite the media bias. Yet at the same time people have their own greed, houses, jobs etc. They don't want to be confronted so a plausibly deniable excuse is enough. So the establishment demands evidence, and we have to play their game.

We have played their game and lost. Since I have been an adult we have countered with sufficient analysis, justification and evidence to convince anyone who is making a voting decision based on logic and discussion. But their decisions are based in fear and greed. Activism in the last 50 years has just been based on idealism and justifying those ideals, that approach has failed miserably and we are moving further to the right. The problem is the human ego, an ego which is conditioned, manipulated, lied to and fanned (MAWPs) to create a society of conflict that only benefits the 1%. Evidence might help but whilst these egos remain in control, opportunists in politics, fear and greed amongst the voters, there is no way forward.

The political battle is to end control by the ego. Trust in your own observation, not the "facts" of the opportunists. The 1% is manipulating us, this is obvious, ignore the lies of trickle-down economics. Don't allow the fear and greed in our own egos to misguide us. The people's system is broken and is being broken now by the 1%; demand the 1% fix it.