Erosion of credibility of authority

"Big Brother" Crying "Wolf"? (Part #3)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

The past decade has seen a progressive and radical erosion of credibility of governance in the light of a variety of mutually reinforcing indications (Abuse of Faith in Governance, 2009). These include:

• questions raised by 9/11 itself (as highlighted by the 9/11 Truth Movement)
• evidential issues relating to the justification of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan
• complicity of government in accumulation of public debt
• apparent complicity of government in processes engendering the current financial crisis
• complicity of government in corruption scandals involving leadership at the highest level
• increasing evidence of the inability of governance to respond to emerging crises
• failure of due diligence to analyze any pattern of crises rather than engage in knee-jerk, fire-fighting responses to isolated incidents as they emerge
• a pattern of broken electoral and policy promises
• evidence of a pattern of secret agreements and activities which suggest that reality (as presented to the public) is very far from being what it is carefully claimed to be
• increasing recognition of miscarriage of justice as a consequence of corruption in the judicial system and tampering with evidence
• dubious justification of detention without trial and extrajudicial executions (notably by systematic use of targetted assassination)

Under these circumstances it is naive to make simple claims regarding warnings of security threats, when it is only too evident that it is in the interest of the parties issuing those warnings to issue those warnings. There is therefore a need to move beyond such "first order" claims to a form of "second order" claim which explicitly responds to that suspicion. There may even be a case for "third order" claims -- reflecting the pattern of insight from first, second and third order cybernetics of regulatory systems -- which merits application to the debate on terrorism as a whole (Consciously Self-reflexive Global Initiatives: Renaissance zones, complex adaptive systems, and third order organizations, 2007; Enabling a 12-fold Pattern of Systemic Dialogue for Governance, 2011).

At some point, there is clearly a need to acknowledge the warning of Abraham Lincoln:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

At this time it must be concluded that it is still assumed that it is possible to fool an adequate number of people for an adequate period of time, as argued by Paul Craig Roberts (Washington Thinks You Are Stupid, Information Clearing House, 6 August 2013).

Barack Obama has declared Snowden to be not "a patriot", and has called upon him to appear in court to answer the charges against him (Obama: NSA leaker Edward Snowden Not a Patriot, Time, 9 August 2013). As president, and a lawyer, Obama carefully omits to refer to the fact that not a single banker involved in the toxic speculation (resulting in the ongoing financial crisis) has been charged or prosecuted (Extreme Financial Risk-taking as Extremism: subject to anti-terrorism legislation? 2009; Richard Eskow, 7 Things About Prosecuting Wall Street You Wanted to Know (But Were Too Depressed to Ask), The Huffington Post, 7 August 2013). Are those variously complicit to be assumed to be "traitors" or "patriots" -- in contrast to Snowden?

Who would doubt that Obama would be happy to have Snowden assassinated? Would "justice" thereby be assumed to have been done, as with Osama bin Laden (Obama on Bin Laden: 'Justice Has Been Done', National Journal, 2 May 2011; Massimo Calabresi, Osama Bin Laden Killed, Obama Hails Moment of 'Justice', Time, 1 May 2011)? Given Obama's responsibility for "justice", are there no issues which merit very careful examination with regard to extra-judicial execution (Mark Kersten, Obama to those Questioning bin Laden Assassination: "Get your head examined", Justice in Conflict, 11 May 2011)? Given the disastrous impact of the financial crisis on the lives and livelihoods of so many, what then of those who argue that those complicit in engendering it should be assassinated -- with or without due process?

The problem for "Big Brother" is that those with the power to misrepresent no longer have any means whatsoever to prove that they have not done so. The more gag-orders and "super-injunctions" there are, namely the less the transparency, the less the ability to disprove whatever people choose to suspect. Guarantors of the highest integrity are potentially compromised. Severely damaging embassies or other facilities through false flag operations will no longer constitute credible proof. Is there a cynical indication of what level damage would indeed be persuasive -- like 9/11? Some other kind of disaster?

Expressed otherwise, would those with the power to misrepresent fail to undertake such misrepresentation, if it was considered to be in their strategic interest to do so? What might that strategic interest be held to be: full-spectrum dominance, access to oil resources, captive markets, development of strategic industries (arms, etc), a religious agenda (Christian Zionism, "crusades", etc)?

A second problem for "Big Brother" is that under those circumstances claims can readily be made by critics that terrorist actions have been undertaken as false flag operations -- without it being possible to provide concrete proof to the contrary, as with the most recent disaster (Africa travel hit after fire ravages Nairobi airport, BBC News, 7 August 2013). To the extent that the insurance companies have exclusion clauses governing cases of terrorism, it is also in their interest to sustain any pretence that a disaster is of terrorist origin.

More controversially, claims can similarly be made with respect to the origin of natural disasters, as with those variously attributed to the HAARP facility by conspiracy theorists (Christchurch Earthquake Conspiracy: how many coincidences are too many coincidences, Pseudo Reality, 2011; New Evidence Fukushima Disaster Created by HAARP, GeoEngineering Exposed, 2012, etc).

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]