Thomas Belvedere
  • Home
  • Blog
  • The Big Movida: The Third American Revolution
  • Articles
  • Bio
  • Contact

The Significance of "Insignificant" Ecuador. Part 3: Rafael Correa and George Orwell´s Door.

12/29/2012

0 Comments

 
Imagen
Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador. Source: info.andes.ec
Imagen
George Orwell. Source: Wikipedia.
                                                                 I know of no nation where there reigns, in general,                                                                                                 less independence of spirit and true liberty of discussion
                                                                 than in the United States …

                                                                The Inquisition never could stop numerous anti-religion books
                                                                from circulating in Spain.
                                                                In the United States, the tyranny of the majority                                                                                                     has taken away even the thought of publishing them.

                                                                                             -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America I* --



America is more censored than Spain during the Inquisition:  there you have it.  The Inquisition was a tough act to follow -- literally.  Yet, incredibly, America managed to do it.

Censorship in America has expanded exponentially since Tocqueville´s era.  We will see why in a moment.

Part 1 of this series took issue with Julian Assange´s recent remark, "Ecuador is insignificant."  On a diplomatic and legal level, all nations are equal in the eyes of the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which put in place the nation-state system governing today´s world.  All nations, without exception, are world players.

Part 2 discussed how Ecuador is significant in another way.  It is testing the limits of American power -- and no oligarchy likes to be tested.  Reportedly armed with $87 million, the C.I.A. is waging a full-court press to unseat Ecuador´s incumbent president, Rafael Correa, in his re-election bid early next year.

This third and final part explains how tiny Ecuador may prove to be significant in yet another area.  Involved therein is why, by today´s standards, Tocqueville`s observation about America´s lack of independence of spirit did not go far enough.


                                                                                  *          *          *


Throughout the Western world today the first principle of freedom of thought and expression is a man:  George Orwell. More than 60 years after his death, Orwell remains the polar star in any serious consideration of and opposition to totalitarianism.

Orwell discovered a door nobody knew existed.  President Correa is knocking on it. 

Early this month the Universidad de la Plata awarded Correa the Rodolfo Walsh Prize for Journalism.  In his acceptance speech, he cited the need for an international dialogue -- a "debate planetario" -- on the role of the private media. 

In that light, please see this blog´s three-part series, "Democratizing The Media" (posts of June 17, July 2 and July 16, 2012).   The core idea:
     
    New myth or new reality? 

    Chances are you have never heard of democratizing the media.

    One revolution deserves another. 

    The revolution of 2008-2009, which changed the American political system into a full-fledged oligarchy, was neither unprecedented nor unheralded; Aristotle wrote about it 2000 years ago.  (See post of October 24, 2011, "The Great American Illusion.")

    That Second American Revolution [of 2008-9] ... made manifest things that had been latent. Today, they are generating new questions, demanding new answers. 

    Revolutions go to the roots.  The private media´s roots are as widespread as they are shallow... 

    George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm, indefatigable foe of Big Brother and of government censorship, came to a startling conclusion: 

    The most dangerous censor is not governmental. 

    Orwell wrote the 

    “chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of…any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution ...  intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves 
    [my emphasis] …"  

    The so-called free press – so called because it is not democratic, viz., it is the property of oligarchs – censors more articles and books in two weeks than all the governments in the world censor in 20 years.  Among the censored works:  anything supporting the discussion Orwell sought ...

    The hour for challenging veiled censorship by media tycoons is here.  As a result of the 2008-9 revolution of the United States political system, a major restriction on human rights that had been hidden is being exposed to the full light of day.  The cause of that exposure:  now in uncontested control, the oligarchy is overplaying its hand.

As for what that major restriction is:

Two weeks versus 20 years?  Surely, you think, I am exaggerating.  I think I am being conservative.  As a writer, TV commentator and newspaper columnist, I experienced five ways in which the private media, in Orwell´s words, exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print: 

(i)  For a fascinating expose of TV censorship techniques, e.g., smirks, eye rolls and other nonarguments, see Pierre Bourdieu´s essay On Television and Journalism.

(ii)  Literary agents are the shock troops of censorship by U.S. media oligarchs (post of July 16, 2012). Contrary to what you have been told, the primary role of agents is not to publish works. As shown by the astounding amount of material they toss in the trash, their real function is to not publish works.  Concrete case:  see this blog, The Big Movida: The Third American Revolution.  

(iii)  Of course, editors censor by rejecting works for publication.  (For specific cases, see our posts of December 30, 2010 on the 2000 presidential election in Florida and of March 19, 2012 on my Violeta de Chamorro interview in Nicaragua).  Less well known is that editors also censor by

(iv) deleting words or paragraphs from your work, thereby significantly altering its meaning.  (See our March 19th post on my 1989-90 interviews in Mexico City with political leaders and professors). 

(v) Finally, and most incredibly, editors insert their words in your work.  Beyond question, this is the worst type of the direct interference Orwell noted.

The first time editors pulled that stunt on me my newspaper column was barely a few weeks old.  A friend in the Attorney General´s Office called about an article I wrote that was published statewide.

"What the hell are you doing," he asked, audibly shaking, "suggesting that it is O.K. for people to break the law?"


I felt I saw the earth rotate.

"It isn´t hearsay, Tom.  I have the clipping in front of me."

I asked him to read off the offending language.  It was the last line in the article:  That´s illegal.  But in our state, who cares?

Thunderstruck, I told him I never wrote those words.  Proof was easily established:  clippings of the same article printed in other newspapers lacked the who cares comment.  The matter was closed -- but not by me. 

Tocqueville´s observation, there was less liberty of discussion in the United States than in Spain under the Inquisition, was made in the 1830s.  If American media magnates wanted to increase that liberty, they would have done it by now.


What is it, then, apart from money, the magnates really want?                                             

The ultimate goal of print and broadcast owners is the same everywhere:   total libertinage for them and their enterprises. Such is their ideal world in which the expression out of control takes its full, double-edged meaning.

Media tycoons employ three tactics to achieve total libertinage:

1. Sew confusion.  Where does libertinage for private media owners end and freedom of the press begin?


You will not find that question asked -- much less answered -- anywhere in the mainstream press; it gives their game away.

Media oligarchs have confounded and comingled libertinage with freedom to the point where not even they know the difference.  Not that they ever knew or want to know now -- on the contrary.  That confusion serves as ideological cover; if they openly admitted they seek libertinage, opposition could form.  America´s oligarchic political system is new and lacks legitimacy; hence democratic decor is needed for the time being.  In that situation, freedom of the press -- as with democracy itself -- is a story they tell to keep the children close to the campfire.

2.  Achieve, via didactic agit-prop and changes in national and international law, a semi-sacred status for media expressions of "opinion" and "judgment."  Here, the Human Rights Foundation is the tycoons´ point man.  The Foundation asserts:

[A]ccording to international human rights law, the prohibition of the criminalization of expressions is applicable, with particular emphasis, in cases where these expressions were “subjective opinions” or “value judgments.”

No crime, then, in expressing opinions or judgments in the media -- ever.

The status of opinions as untouchable serves as the foundation stone for the following tactic:

3.  I don´t know of any introductory journalism class which does not teach that opinions and judgments are placed on and limited to the editorial page.

In reality, and as any objective content analysis of the mass media will show, opinions and judgments have spread almost everywhere, even to the front page.  That opinion creep has a purpose:  it is transforming the entire newspaper or broadcast into one big editorial page, one big opinion piece. 


The creep did not start yesterday.  Unabashed war monger and unabridged mercantilist Joseph Pulitzer invented it in the late 1800s. 
  Non-American readers, take note:  100% of American journalists -- unlike its fiction authors -- are in Seventh Heaven if they win the prize that bears his name.

This is what waits at the end of the trail:

Because they only express opinions and judgments, the media can say whatever they want and cannot be held accountable.  If CNN reports, for example, they think you are a child molester and you lose your job, home and family, you will have no legal recourse; after all, they are "only" offering an "opinion."  Total libertinage achieved.

Their brave new world does not end there. Already, according to the media oligarchs, to question total  libertinage is ipso facto to attack freedom of the press -- morally condemnable, socially reprehensible and, if they get their way, someday criminally liable.  In the latter regard, media magnates reserve for themselves what they deny to others.
 
What it all boils down to:


The media tycoons are moving quickly and resolutely to establish a new, vital zone in the production and dissemination of information.  In that regard, the three tactics outlined above are entirely legal and ethically sanctioned because they work hand in glove with the consolidation of America´s new oligarchic political system.


                                                                                     *          *          *



Who will dare challenge the media tycoons? 


Not America -- that´s for sure.

First stirrings are underway in three international organizations in Latin America.  

1. UNASUR (Unión de Naciones Suramericanas) at the request its member Ecuador soon will take up the issue of unofficial censorship and other antidemocratic practices of the private media.  

2.  CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) is preparing to create a commission to “supplement” the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States.  Among its concerns:   censorship by and for media magnates.

3.  ALBA (Alianza Bolivariana por los Pueblos de Nuestra América) is also considering creating its own commission on human rights with an emphasis on freedom of expression blocked by private media owners.

Concretely, how will democratizing the media be accomplished?   What would a democratized media look like?

Our June 17 post offered a preliminary proposal. 


Councils would be created to which authors could formally complain about their articles, videos, etc., which the private media censored:

The media would then be required to send the censored material to the appropriate council, which would select works it deems to be in the public interest, convenience or necessity.  If the selections are too numerous to be practical for public diffusion, a pool would be formed from which a final random selection would be made.  The media would then be legally compelled to publish or air the works they had previously censored. 

To plug up the weasel holes of graveyard hours, printing articles in microscopic text crammed among tire ads in the back of the back pages, etc., the final placement of council-selected works would be determined by a random draw.  


Un-American! Totalitarian! Stalinist!  Those are a few of the media owners´ responses which are fit to print here.  Unfortunately for them, as our June 17th post observed,

there is a 100% American precedent that media tycoons are not entitled to 100% libertinage in what they purvey to the public. That precedent is public affairs broadcasting. The federal government requires it of all TV and radio stations.    

The Federal Communications Commission oversees public broadcasting. The FCC´s summary:   

"In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the ´public interest, convenience and necessity.´  This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license."


Sounds too good to be true?  It is.  In the next breath the FCC notes that

"broadcasters – not the FCC or any other government agency – are responsible for selecting the material that they air. By operation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and because the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from censoring broadcast matter, our role in overseeing program content is very limited."

Very limited.  If Merriam Webster is searching for a classic illustration of the word understatement, there it is.


Over 90% of public programming in America is a hoax.  Controlled by the oligarchy, how could it be otherwise?  In the wonderland of the FCC and the mass media, the regulator is regulated by the regulated
.  The first thing Alice would have spotted:  all promises made by media tycoons are written in jello.  Here is why:  

(1)  Note carefully that the FCC defines responsibility in terms of the local community.  In practice that means responsibility ends at the city limits.  When it comes to national and international affairs, broadcasters have carte blanche.  That recognition by the FCC is nothing less than the thin edge of the wedge of total libertinage. 

That is not the only place where the wedge appears:

(2)  The FCC informs us it is prohibited from censoring broadcast matter.  Nowhere does the FCC mention prohibiting the private media from censoring broadcast matter.  Indeed, in the U.S. the very idea of private media censorship is not just an oxymoron -- it is unimaginable.
  As Tocqueville would say, the very  thought has been taken away.

(3)  Public affairs broadcasts are consigned to graveyard slots when almost nobody is tuned in.  But perhaps even more importantly,

(4)  as the FCC stated, the owners of TV and radio stations are allowed to define public interest. 

Our June 17 post concluded:

To repeat, the new American political system is making manifest many things which had been latent.  One is giving rise to a new question:

The FCC only "regulates" TV and radio stations. Why not require public interest, convenience and necessity of book publishers, magazines, newspapers?  Why should they be exempt from public responsibility?



                                                                                      *          *          *


We end this three-part series where we began:  CNN´s "insignificant" interview with Julian Assange on November 29.

To establish genuine public responsibility in information requires confronting the mass media over the zone of libertinage they are rapidly creating and strengthening. 

That confrontation consists of two steps:

(1)  Watch the Thomas Hearns-Pepino Cuevas championship fight mentioned in Part 2.   You will see a masterpiece of zone production, maintenance and distribution.  As for the distribution of roles, at present, Dear Reader, you are Cuevas.  The magnates are Hearns.

(2)  Open George Orwell´s door.

It appeared larger than life in the CNN interviewer´s insistence that Assange address censorship in Ecuador.  It was that insistence that sprung the trap; it provoked his "insignificant" slip of the tongue, an unconscious gaff.  (See our prior post on the inner trickster figure.)

There is an alternative to letting some preening puella urinalist** tie you in knots on national TV.  Don´t avoid or flee from Orwell´s door.  Instead, grab the handle,  turn, push, enter:

Ecuador?  You want to know what I think of censorship in Ecuador?


So glad you asked.

Privately-owned newspapers El Universo, El Mercurio, La Hora, Expreso, Diario Hoy; privately-owned TV stations Ecuavisa, Teleamazonas, RTS, Telerama, Oromar:  you censor more stories in two weeks than your government censors in 20 years.

"Really?  Name one!"  you protest.  Here it is:  "Carta Abierta a Rafael Correa" in our post of January 17, 2012, "Toward a New Political Economy."

After 70 years, is Orwell´s censored discussion of private media censorship finally arriving?  Can the lack of independence of spirit and freedom of expression in America noted by Tocqueville be corrected?

Yes, but.  American oligarchs will never voluntarily retreat from the zone of total libertinage they are building and fortifying.  The end to their attacks on liberty of expression requires nothing less than the Third American Revolution which will resurrect the polity, i.e., the oligarchy/democracy hybrid created by the Founding Fathers but with a greatly strengthened democratic component.  

For the time being, then, we must look outside the United States for the removal of Orwell´s chief danger to freedom of thought and speech.

If President Correa can launch a meaningful dialogue followed by meaningful action to democratize the private media, "insignificant" Ecuador will be a significant world player in more ways than one.

                                                                                      The End
_______________

* "Je ne connais pas de pays où il règne, en général, moins d'indépendance d'esprit et de véritable liberté de discussion qu'en Amérique ... L'Inquisition n'a jamais pu empêcher qu'il ne circulât en Espagne des livres contraires à la religion du plus grand nombre. L'empire de la majorité fait mieux aux États-Unis: elle a ôté jusqu'à la pensée d'en publier.” Alexis de Tocqueville (1835), De la démocratie en Amérique I (deuxième partie), pp. 84-5. (“Du pouvoir qu´exerce la majorité en Amérique sur la pensée”).  My translation.

**Urinalism :  1.  Libertinage of media owners parading as freedom of the press.  2.  Lack of differentiation by the media of opinion and fact.  3. Ad hominem attacks by the media with no attempt to present supporting facts.  4.  Negative media stories that offer no fair opportunity for rebuttal.  5.  An editorial page serving as an excuse for defamatory articles.  6.  The claim to journalism unsupported by a willingness to take risks.  7.  Synonym: yellow journalism.  Post of February 12, 2012.

0 Comments

The Significance of "Insignificant " Ecuador.  Part 2:  The C.I.A. and Rafael Correa. 

12/21/2012

0 Comments

 
Imagen
C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Source: Wikipedia.
Imagen
Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador. Source: Wikipedia.
NOTE:  Please see the prior post, Part 1.


                                                                            Before you embark on a journey of revenge,
                                                                            dig two graves.
                                                                                                                                -- Confucius --





The American government can forgive many high crimes and misdemeanors.  Forcing it to close one of its foreign military bases isn´t one of them.

In 2009, the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, made the U.S. air force pack up and get out.  Ever since, the C.I.A. and Pentagon have been chomping at the bit to get rid of him.  They will get their chance early next year, when Correa comes up for re-election.

According to a former British ambassador,  the C.I.A. has amassed $87 million to "swamp" Correa. 

The Tale of The Tape:

A nationwide Cedatos-Gallup poll released November 30, 2012 shows Correa with 53%, Guillermo
Lasso 22%, and each of the other six presidential candidates with 10% or less.  Assuming those numbers are correct and given Ecuadorian voters´ penchant for electoral surprises (Correa was a huge one in 2006), the C.I.A.´s  goal of pushing Correa below 50% in the February election -- thereby forcing him into a run-off in April  -- is within reach.

But will Washington reach it?

Pushing a well-established incumbent below 50% is not all that mysterious or difficult for anybody who knows how to conduct a campaign. 

Start with a ball-park estimate.  Assume 11 million people vote in Ecuador´s February election.  If 53% vote for Correa, he will receive 5,830,000 votes.  5,500,000 are the 50% hurdle needed to avoid a run-off election.  Conclusion: a swing away from Correa of 330,000 people would knock him under the 50% hurdle. More people live in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

There is a way to create that swing.  C.I.A. agents did not and cannot now put into practice ... 


For starters, because the tactic is counter-intuitive, it never occurred to them.

Let´s look at what the intuitive knowledge is regarding elections:


President Correa once noted that the more candidates who run against him in February, the better it is for him.  In nearly all elections that observation is as often-voiced as it is true.  The reason is, any well-established incumbent has a base of voters who will stick with him no matter what.  If that base is only 35%, for example, and seven opponents carve up the remaining 65%, the incumbent wins.

For incumbents seeking to avoid a run-off election, I would add this nuance to the prevailing, intuitive, purely quantitative assessment:  its truth depends on who the opposition candidates are.

Beware of geographically-based Favorite Son candidates.  Recruiting and funding them is a trick of the trade; they can upset conventional political wisdom.  True, an incumbent´s through-thick-or-thin base does not vanish under an assault by Favorite Sons; however, the base flakes off.  The more city/regional Favorite Sons enter the race, the harder it is for the incumbent to clear the 50% hurdle. 

Why does a Favorite Son do what no other candidate can?  The answer in the form of a dictum:  blood is thicker than ideology.

Now, the simple truth is not a single Favorite Son tossed his hat into the up-coming Ecuadorian presidential election.

You can be sure C.I.A. agents headquartered in Langley, Virginia, and throughout Latin America are wringing their hands on reading those words.  Damn.  NOW he tells us!   Yep, it´s too late.  The deadline for candidates to file in Ecuador is past.

Look again at the photo of the C.I.A. headquarters at the top of this post.  Not a single person in that gigantic building complex was aware of the Favorite Son tactic -- or if they were, nothing happened.


Why not?  Inquiring minds -- both pro and anti-Correa -- want to know.

It´s Reality Therapy Time.  Our post of October 9, 2012:

"Why, after all these years, do the C.I.A. and State Department not have a grasp of basic election mechanics?

I will go ahead and do the unheard of:  reveal what Washington´s dilemma is and why it cannot be solved.   Unheard of, because the following discussion has never before appeared in public.  It is covered by an omerta, the Italians call it:  a silence more silent than silence ... 

Washington´s problem in one word:  gators ...

The gator corps consists of election consultants.  Most are third and fourth generation scions of well-known but long-dead politicos; flotsam-jetsam from loser political campaigns who have no place to go, beg for help from state political party hacks and land on consulting firm doorsteps; House and Senate office staffers who were, ah, let go; lobbyists´ sons and daughters whose expertise in political campaigns consists of having attended Exeter or Andover where they roomed with you-know-who in tenth grade ...

D.C. election consultants constellate around the two major political parties.  They all know each other, and one hand washes the other.  A community, then.   It is time to add [a qualifier] to the term gator:  mafia.

The gator mafia has two major traits: 

(1) It is a classic manifestation of the Peter Principle.  With a handful of exceptions, D.C. election consultants are as well paid as they are incompetent ...

(2)  The federal government´s hands are tied.  Washingtonian contacts rather than competence founded the gator mafia; inbreeding did the rest ... 

With gators dripping off both arms, what is the government to do?  When in D.C., there is only one recourse to Beltway Bandits:  other Beltway Bandits."


How do you send in the A-Team when there is no A-Team?  As the "Ghostbusters" theme song phrased it, Who ya´ gonna call?* 

Actually, if you´re the C.I.A. chief, you don´t call anybody.  They call you -- from the White House.  An aide utters the magic words, "The president wants ... "  Presto -- a government contract for Ecuador´s election flies off the shelf. 

The gator mafia will take a big bite out of the C.I.A.´s $87-million get-Correa stash.  Any leftovers will go to private Ecuadorian media.  More on them in Part 3.

If you, Dear Reader, want to learn about election campaigns, the first thing to do is stop listening to D.C. political consultants. The vast majority knows even less about elections than you do.  I say that because, unlike you, they are filled with misinformation, misconceptions, mistakes, bad habits -- in brief, all kinds of negative knowledge that would take them years to unlearn.  The C.I.A.´s shocking ignorance of the Favorite Son tactic is only the latest blatant example in a long series of blatant examples.

Second, take all campaign schools -- especially those run by the Republican and Democrat parties -- with a grain of salt.  Painting by the numbers will never make you an artist.  All it will do is keep you from learning how to paint.

Instead, turn on the TV and watch The Dog Whisperer.  Yes, I am serious.  In almost every episode César Millán shows the importance of zones in animal behavior.  Zones are the first principle, the music scale, of election campaigns.  If you can´t play that scale, anybody who can will knock you out pronto. 

The metaphor is more than a metaphor ...

To see a zone in operation between human combatants, watch this two-round championship fight between Thomas Hearns and Pepino Cuevas.  Controlling zones = ring generalship.  We extrapolated from Hearns´ technique, which was developed by his legendary trainer Emanuel Steward, in many election campaigns.   If you want to know what happened, see what happened to Cuevas, an excellent fighter and deservedly a world champion.  Ditto Roberto Duran four years later.

If you feel more comfortable with a book, read The Territorial Imperative. 


                                                                                   *          *          *


O.K.,  the C.I.A.  missed the Favorite Sons boat in Ecuador.  However, there is another tactic they can still use in their journey of revenge:


To assure a passive public, the oligarchy running  the U.S. drills into its citizens day in day out that they have no power.  That message is flat-out wrong.  On the most rudimentary level, no man lacks the power to defeat himself. 

Carl Jung analyzed an archetype in the unconscious of all people everywhere.  Blunders, gaffs, slips of the tongue, stumbles:   the trickster figure causes people with even the most extraordinary awareness and abilities to say and do stupid things, to sabotage themselves.  Potential presidents who get caught with their pants down or chasing maids around hotel rooms are the most celebrated cases.

In election fights in which we were behind, we activated the opponent´s trickster.  The results were stunning. Which leads me to ask:  Will the C.I.A. do likewise against Correa?

Frankly, I don´t think they have the foggiest idea of what I am talking about.  I say that because current events in Ecuador include a classic unconscious blunder by the C.I.A.-backed candidate,** conservative banker Guillermo Lasso.

I noted In August that Lasso´s campaign was well-run but not perfect.  Two months later, on October 27, 2012, he named Indian leader Auki Tituaña to be his vice-presidential running mate.  Tituaña accepted, but a few days later withdrew because of a dispute with his political party, Pachakutic.  I doubt the blunder was consciously made.  Stated differently, Lasso literally did not know what he was doing.

Depending on what Correa makes of Lasso´s fumble, it could be fatal:

Most readers, including C.I.A. employees, are too young to remember the Thomas Eagleton affair.


In 1972, Democrat presidential nominee George McGovern picked Senator Eagleton to be his vice-presidential candidate. When reports of Eagleton´s hospitalizations for depression and exhaustion emerged a few days later, McGovern fired him and hired Sargent Shriver.

The message was loud, clear.  The guy can´t even pick his V.P. properly.  What makes you think he can run a government?

I will let this fact speak for itself:  in the 1972 election, McGovern carried only D.C and Massachusetts.


A personal anecdote:  in 1979, I met George McGovern, chatted with him.  I was shocked by how much he had aged since 1972; I almost didn´t recognize him.  McGovern did not merely lose an election; he was wiped out.

A thing is its limits.  The significance of Ecuador is that it is testing the limits of American power.   Even with $87 million the C.I.A. cannot defeat Rafael Correa.  At this point, only Rafael Correa can defeat Rafael Correa.  


Coming soon.  The Significance of "Insignificant" Ecuador.  Part 3:  Rafael Correa and George Orwell´s Door.                                                                              
_______________


*The gator mafia is a manifestation of a contemporary phenomenon:  incomcruption.  For an analysis of the growing synthesis of incompetence and corruption, see The Source of Terrorism:  Middle Class Rebellion.
**Guillermo Lasso spent $5.8 million mostly on a torrent of media spots aired before the official election campaign season began.  O.K., I give up:  where did those megabucks come from?  So far, utter silence, omerta.  All Quiet on The Western Front.  The Eastern Front, too.
0 Comments

Machiavelli, Julian Assange and Rafael Correa:  The Significance of "Insignificant" Ecuador.

12/15/2012

0 Comments

 
Imagen
Niccolo Machiavelli.
Imagen
Julian Assange. Source: Google Crome.
Imagen
Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador. Source: Bloomberg.
Those States consequently stand surest and endure longest which, either by the operation of their institutions can renew themselves, or come to be renewed by accident apart from any design. Nothing, however, can be clearer than that unless thus renewed these bodies do not last. Now the way to renew them is, as I have said, to bring them back to their beginnings, since all beginnings of sects, commonwealths, or kingdoms must needs have in them a certain excellence, by virtue of which they gain their first reputation and make their first growth. But because in progress of time this excellence becomes corrupted, unless something be done to restore it to what it was at first, these bodies necessarily decay; for as the physicians tell us in speaking of the human body, "Something or other is daily added which sooner or later will require treatment."

                                                                 -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses, Book Three, Chapter 1 --


NOTE:   Part 1 of a three-part series.

Many accuse Julian Assange of being Machiavellian.


I say he is not Machiavellian enough.

Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, recently made headlines.  He declared in a CNN interview  that Ecuador, which granted him asylum, was "insignificant" -- one of the "small countries" and "not a world player."

Assange misspoke.  Every nation is significant -- period.  They are all world players.  That is a fact, not a pious wish.  All countries are equal in the eyes of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which set up the nation-state system governing the world today.  

Assange needs to acknowledge his mistake.   It only serves to constellate an already-existing, full-blown complex of prejudices, doubts, suspicions, i.e., that Assange is a loose cannon about whom John Milton gave the best advice:  "Farthest from him is best"; that Assange is an incorrigible floater who has no home, only paces to rest; that his knowledge of computers is as big as his understanding of people and politics is small; that he is half-baked and half-educated -- an "idiota especializado" (José Ortega y Gasset); that he is a callous Gyro Gearloose -- arrogant, disdainful, imperious;  that as a citizen of the Anglo Saxon  "developed" world, he views Latin America as a laughable basket case; that, when the lights are turned out  he is a bigot, a racist.

Here is the official reaction of WikiLeaks to the "insignificant" affair:

“It was set that the theme [of the interview] was the abuse of mass surveillance and it’s known that Ecuador is not a power of abusive surveillance. Assange said that the South American country ´is insignificant´ in this context."


Sorry, WikiLeaks -- your statement doesn´t, well ... hack it.  Watch the CNN interview again.  The context was clearly, unequivocally, in Assange´s own words, "small" and "not a world player." 

Assange needs to say simply and clearly -- and, above all, quickly -- that his choice of words was poor, for which he is sorry.  An error acknowledged is an error abolished.
*

His enemies are praying no such acknowledgement will be forthcoming.  They know that silence will relegate Assange and his supporters to play The Blivet Trick, i.e., trying to shove 10 pounds of horse shit into a 5 pound bag.  

Assange founded WikiLeaks with a certain excellence by which WikiLeaks gained its first reputation and made its meteoric first growth.  He needs to be reminded of those beginnings and to restore his organization to what it was at first.


He isn´t the only one who needs to be so reminded. 

In trying to distort the context in which the "insignificant" statement was made, WikiLeaks is showing signs of wavering from its initial excellence.  That drift is the strategy of Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are trying to fake Assange out of position by making raw survival concerns, mostly financial and legal, override everything else.  They are aware that if they can catch WikiLeaks lying just once, they will have it made.  To be founded with excellence is not without its own peculiar burdens.

In real politics -- as opposed to playing at politics -- if the opponent has a good point, you do not dispute or deny it; rather, you support it.  However, you leave it to him to promote his point.  Likewise, if you make a mistake, you do not deny or dispute it   You acknowledge it and move on.

Here, an expression from golf is singularly revealing:  Miss ´em quick.  The meaning is, if you make a bad stroke, don´t bemoan or belabor it.  Move on to the next stroke.  

Ecuador`s President Rafael Correa quickly reacted to the "insignificant" affair on Twitter:   “Don’t pay attention to the corrupt media. Reactions like this are exactly what they look for.”   In other words, CNN  set a trap.  For Assange, it was the second time around.  On October 23, 2010, he walked out of a CNN interview in which the host tried to divert him from a discussion of Iraq war logs released by WikiLeaks to
the Swedish sex allegations against him.

President Correa´s choice of the word corrupt to describe CNN is not the choice we would make.

Corrupt, as the above quote from Machiavelli indicates, implies that at some time in the past, excellence -- i.e., high principles and practices such as integrity and a concern for the truth -- prevailed.  In fact, no such golden epoch ever existed for CNN, the Washington Post or any other American mainstream media.  As our post of February 12, 2012 discussed, the founding father of the American media was not Jesus or Aristotle but Joseph Pulitzer (1847-1911), a loud-mouthed warmonger and inventor of yellow journalism.  All the news that was fit to make money he printed.

As the hoopla surrounding the Pulitzer Prize demonstrates year after year, American newspapermen are proud -- indeed, ecstatic -- to be associated with him.  To the contrary, two of America`s best fiction writers refused the Pulitzer:  Sinclair Lewis and William Saroyan.  Hard-charging reporters and editors, you might want to wonder why.

To describe the reality of American press, therefore, we would use another expression President Correa frequently employs and which is literally right on the money: los medios mercantilistas.  No translation needed.

All of which brings up this basic question:  why are you talking to CNN if you already know who they are?  Years ago, I wrote an article based on my TV appearances, revealing how the media will censor you via facial gestures, sniggers and other nonarguments.  I tossed the piece when I discovered that French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu already had said everything I had in mind.  His On Television and Journalism rips a hole in the black bag of media tricks.  They are as limited as they are childish, however, they trip and trap the unwary.


The CNN Assange interview is a superb case study of what Bourdieu castigated.  For starters, hit the pause button on the start of the interview; you will see a vintage CNN snear:  Assange apparently agreed to the interview because he wanted to promote his book and to discuss serious issues such as surveillance.  CNN obviously wanted to do something else -- and did it. The interviewer -- who is so famous I never heard of her -- typically did zero research and misled Assange about the topic to be discussed.  I don´t know where CNN recruits its stable of false-pride, no-shame urinalists,** but it is the hairspray capitol of the world.

Which brings us back to our basic question asked above.  It is also Bourdieu´s concluding point.  Before agreeing to appear on TV, you mght want to ask yourself:  Why?  What for?  If you can`t come up with a good answer, don´t go.

Will the "insignificant" incident be the Machiavellian accident that renews WikiLeaks?

Over 2,000 years ago, Heraclitus observed that character is destiny.  We would extrapolate:  it takes one type of person to found a successful organization; it takes another type to maintain it.  Rarely are both types found in one and the same individual.  Time will tell if Assange is an exception to the rule.


                                                                                  *          *          *


The Treaty of Westphalia aside, is Ecuador insignificant?

I am aware of only one United States organization that in its heart of hearts believes Ecuador is significant: 


The CIA.

When you get past all the hubris, Hugo Chávez is not so bad for Uncle Sam.  America continues to import 11% of its oil from Venezuela.

Ecuador´s President Correa is a case apart.

There are three reasons why the C.I.A. and Pentagon would give their eye teeth to get rid of Correa:

(i)  In September 2009, Correa forced the Pentagon  to close its military base in Manta, Ecuador.
(ii)  Correa continues to be the most popular leader in Latin America.  As of September 2012, his approval rating was 80%.
(iii)   Other Latin American leaders and politicians cannot help but notice the numbers.  Correa is an example -- and all examples are contagious.  The United States has over 20 military bases in Latin America,  therefore ...

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, reported that after the October election victory of Hugo Chávez (see this blog, posts of October 5 and 9, 2012),  the CIA tripled its Ecuadorian war chest to $87 million. That money will be stuffed into the 2013 presidential election in an all-out effort to defeat Correa.

Correa´s response was not long in coming.  On November 3 he referred to the Murray report and denounced the impending C.I.A. intervention.  A few days later, the United States Ambassador to Ecuador, Adan Namm, rejected Murray´s report and Correa´s denunciation:  "It is completely false."

$87 million.  You still think Ecuador is insignificant?

Two months prior to the Murray report, we discussed (post of August 27, 2012) the C.I.A.´s 7-step strategy to defeat Correa:

"6.  Correa receives less than 50% of the vote in the upcoming presidential election of February 17, 2013.  He is forced into an April 7, 2013-runoff election with the United States-backed candidate, conservative banker Guillermo Lasso.  Lasso has highly competent consultants; his campaign is being conducted extremely well (but not perfectly) given the context of Correa´s popularity.   To wit:

Lasso`s media timing, style, and message closely resemble those of Jeff Bingaman`s senatorial campaign of 1982 in New Mexico.  Bingaman did what everybody said was impossible:  he defeated the internationally known and highly popular Harrison Jack Schmitt, incumbent senator and former astronaut.   Diogenes in search of one good man is the powerful, unconscious archetype that Bingaman and Lasso activated ... 

It will be interesting to see if Correa and his campaign team know how to counter the unconscious forces set in motion. 

(7)  Finally, nonstop megabucks stop Correa in the April Correa-Lasso election. 


There is a fatal flaw in the Washington strategy.  Do you see it?"

If Craig Murray is right, the nonstop megabucks are in place.  But what else?


Coming soon:  Part 2:  The Significance of "Insignificant" Ecuador.  Rafael Correa and The C.I.A.  
_______________
*Robert Kennedy:  "I was involved in many of the early decisions on Vietnam, decisions that helped set us on our present path. It may be that the effort was doomed from the start ...  If that is the case, as it well may be, and then I am willing to bear my share of the responsibility, before history and before my fellow citizens. But past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which to live. Now as ever, we do ourselves best justice when we measure ourselves against ancient tests, as in the Antigone of Sophocles: `All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.´"
**For a working definition and discussion of urinalism, see our posts of February 12,  March 19, and March 28, 2012.
0 Comments

    Categories

    All

    Archives

    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    July 2009

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.