United States of America, Inc.
Why a change of President matters little
Einstein once said that, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Similarly, W.L. Bateman stated that, “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep on getting what you’ve always got.”
Both of these adages – both subjectively identical – couldn’t be more applicable than they are regarding the current world events; particularly, as it relates to the political arena, which is largely the reason the U.S. has found a large number of its citizens electing a President whose temperament, ideologies and approach appear to be in direct contrast to those who have presided in recent history.
Few would argue the volatility of the U.S. economy in which its current condition – whether fairly or unfairly – is largely attributed to the decisions and policies of the Bush administration. In fact, considering the core responsibility of government to maintain stability and growth, it becomes virtually impossible to disassociate the administration’s influence or contribution to the problems without assuming their complicity and/or incompetence; both of which would arguable deem them unfit for continued leadership.
Therefore, unless one wanted more of the same, what sense would it make to continue supporting someone or something that has proven defective and/or flawed in recent history? After all, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
But day by day, more and more people are realizing that what we are witnessing is not the accidental deterioration of veracious systems, but rather, the revelation of the intentional and complicit corruption behind them; all packaged and sold under the guise of legitimacy, but built on a malicious framework of oligarchic manipulation.
Consider the United States government for example, an institution that is no different – in structure or functionality – than any other large corporation or union of corporations, which flourish and fail in the same manner, eventually collapsing, only to rebuild under new leadership and identity, but maintaining the same owners and intentions.
The exposed fraud and corruption of Enron and Arthur Anderson; the demise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the “golden parachute” securities of CEO’s; and the financial bailout in the duplicity of Wall Street (aka welfare for the rich), are merely microcosms of the greater culture, line-of-thinking, and values of the parent company; The United States of America, Inc.
Therefore, if the values don’t change, then the line-of-thinking doesn’t change. And if the line-of-thinking doesn’t change, then the culture doesn’t change. And if the culture doesn’t change, then it matters little who becomes the next CEO (President) of the organization.
Here are the parallels:
Company = U.S. Government
Shareholders/Board = Special Interest Groups (Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Big Business, Oil Companies, financiers, etc.)
CEO = President (i.e. Bush, Obama, etc.)
Managerial Staff = Presidential Administration (VP, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.)
Employee/Customer = The People, citizens (aka The American People)
Product = (Freedom, Life, Liberty, Security, Prosperity, Democracy)
Projects = (War on Terror, Bringing home the troops, restoring the economy, securing the U.S., mortgage crisis, etc.)
Agent = Media (TV, News, Radio)
The only difference between Government and a Corporation is that Government allows the Employee/Customer to believe that they are selecting their CEO (aka voting). In actuality, the choice for president is done by a “selection” – much like a conclave - and not an “election” as we are led to believe. The elections of 2000 and 2004 have more than proven this. Simply put, the people elect from a pre-selected set of candidates; likened to being forced to choose between liver and chick gizzards for your favorite meal, resulting in the individual choosing the one that they can stomach the most.
**In fact, if a corporation really wanted to make its employees believe that their input was valuable and appreciated and that their thoughts were instrumental in determining the direction of the company, the corporation should do the same as government and allow employees to vote for their CEO. This - although a placebo by effect - would surely promote employee loyalty by providing them the perception and the “warm and fuzzy” feeling of inclusion**
Unfortunately, voting - primarily when the people don't take the extra steps and responsibility to hold the incumbents accountable to their word - serves to be no more than a suggestion or a glorified people poll/survey. However, if the people were to take the necessary step of going beyond the vote to hold political pundits accountable to their actions and promises by way of such tools as impeachment or civil disobedience, then the vote becomes more than a voice; it becomes a virtue; but I digress.
The CEO is ALWAYS selected by the Shareholders/Board. The CEO (President) is determined by his/her ability to effectively manage and direct the company (Government) as desired by the Shareholders (Big Business) in order to increase revenue or control of the market. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the candidate who raises or spends the most money wins up to 95% of the elections; generating funds at levels of what less than 1% of citizens can afford; siphoning much of the money from non-district residents and corporations who are not even permitted to vote in the election they seek to influence. But what better way to garner support from foreign interests other than through corporate sponsorship?
The CEO (President) is only concerned with the happiness and progression of the Employee/Customer (the people) to the degree that it impacts the revenue for the Shareholders (Big Business). Therefore, a CEO’s (President’s) obligation is to the Shareholders (Big Business), NOT to the Employee/Customer (the people). A CEO who attempts to work in the best interest of the Employee/Customer (The People) in spite of the intentions of the Shareholders will be promptly fired…..or fired upon. (i.e. JFK).
The Company (Government) is more concerned with the Employee/Customers (the people's) habits than it is their happiness. Unhappiness is overlooked until it results in habits that could potentially have an adverse effect on the company’s revenue. Reason: A change of Employee/Customer habit will change the direction of the company entirely; because a change in habit is often a direct reflection in the change of values; and things control you to the degree that they control what you value the most.
Therefore, the CEO must sell a vision of the Company (government) to the Employee/Customer that is motivational and inspirational so that the Employee/Customer will continue to work hard to support and defend the company (Government) in order to assure the coffers (i.e. revenue, stocks) of the Shareholders under the misassumption that they are assuring their own [insert Enron story here].
Speeches and photo-ops are no different than commercials and advertisements that are offered by the Media (The Agent), designed to sell an image to inspire trust, hope, fear, and/or desire in a product (i.e. Freedom, Life, Liberty, Security, Prosperity); the product being an ideological aspiration that is often in direct contrast to the actual goal of the Shareholders (Big Business). The product is the motivation. The project (i.e. War on Terror, mortgage crisis, etc.) is merely a means to an end; changeable as desired, often offering no measureable and/or tangible goal. Without such earmarks, projects like the “War On Terror” can rage on indefinitely because it’s end was never intended in the first place.
However, the original business plan (the Constitution) was designed so that the true power of the company rested in the hands of the Employee/Customer (the people), who provide the greatest energy (i.e. work, money) to the company, and therefore, should reap the greatest rewards and benefits. It created checks and balances to keep the Employee/Customer (the people) safe from mismanagement and tyrannical rule; which is why we now find the CEO (President) and his Managerial Staff making changes and usurping the original business plan (the Constitution).
Contrary to popular belief, President Bush did NOT fail in his role over the last 8 years. He accomplished exactly what the Shareholders wanted him to accomplish, which is why he has been able to stave persecution from such contemptuous acts. He was a protected investment, and now, the baton has been passed to an even more effective and more protected investment; being protected to the point of receiving Secret Service assignment even before announcing his run for Presidency.
Likely, President Bush won’t be held accountable or answerable to his role in the current state of things until after he is no longer President. That way, the parties who are truly in control (i.e. Shareholders) can create the perception of change and progress, which wins the support of the masses by offering just one or a few sacrificial lambs in exchange for Employee/Customer dedication and loyalty; something that ALL companies desire.
However, as is stands today, the corporation (Government) is still controlled by the same Shareholders….or at least, the same lines-of-thinking. Therefore, the change of CEO (President) matters little; particularly, if the values, vision, and direction of the Shareholders remains the same (to stay rich and powerful).....and there is no reason for us to believe that it has changed. The Rich always want to stay rich, and power is never willfully relinquished.
The Employee/Customer (the people) is the greatest resource in the world; no business could exist without them. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Company (Government) to either keep them happy, or to keep them fearful; both of which would promote specific, predictable habits.
However, when a company doesn’t operate transparently and with integrity, and instead, resorts to corruption and deceit as a means to an end, then, it becomes imbalanced and starts losing the control and confidence of its Employees/Customers (the people), and thus, has to resort to using “fear and uncertainty” as a means of regaining and maintaining control. The company (government) must place itself in a position to where the Employee/Customer (the people) feels that they need the company more than the company needs them. Therefore, in order to remain all-powerful, more dire circumstances will be created by the company in order to promote dependency.
In such institutions, fearful people are always preferred over thinking ones, because they are quick to acquiesce and offer little resistance to a system that obviously and overtly works against their best interest.
“So helpless does slavery make men that they grow fond of it.” - Vauvenargues
With all things considered regarding the inner-workings of this giant machine of which we all play an integral part, imagine the impact and outcome if the Employee/Customer changed her thinking, her values, and resultantly, her habits. Suppose that the Employee/Customer’s got on one accord and stopped working and giving money to a company that refused to recognize and meet their needs. What would happen to the company if the Employee/Customer realized that the Company works for them – and not the other way around – and then started conducting themselves as Shareholders as opposed to Employees/Customers?
But, as with most companies during the introduction of a new CEO, expectations are running high; based primarily on the anticipation of success, change, growth, and progress. The stocks increase; and for the first several months, you can expect positive reports of progress and change (regardless if it is true or not), because this is absolutely necessary in quelling the anxieties of the Employee/Customer and Business Partners (foreign companies), and fostering an environment of prosperity, freedom, and security (The Product). All will intentionally appear well and successful…………until.
Unfortunately, due to the excitement, fanfare, and momentum of this historic moment, all forms of constructive criticism that are not aligned with those of the status quo or popular opinion will be deemed as seditious and/or antagonistic, and will go largely ignored; resulting in the true opportunities for change to go unnoticed and under-appreciated during the most opportune times; that is, until a catastrophic event presents itself and places us in a position to where we are forced to reckon with our greatest rival and limitation: Ourselves.
“It seldom happens that a man changes his life through his habitual reasoning. No matter how fully he may sense the new plans and aims revealed to him by reason, he continues to plod along in the old paths until his life becomes frustrating and unbearable…he finally makes the change only when his usual life can no longer be tolerated.” - Tolstoy
Peaces,
Tungz
Why a change of President matters little
Einstein once said that, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Similarly, W.L. Bateman stated that, “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep on getting what you’ve always got.”
Both of these adages – both subjectively identical – couldn’t be more applicable than they are regarding the current world events; particularly, as it relates to the political arena, which is largely the reason the U.S. has found a large number of its citizens electing a President whose temperament, ideologies and approach appear to be in direct contrast to those who have presided in recent history.
Few would argue the volatility of the U.S. economy in which its current condition – whether fairly or unfairly – is largely attributed to the decisions and policies of the Bush administration. In fact, considering the core responsibility of government to maintain stability and growth, it becomes virtually impossible to disassociate the administration’s influence or contribution to the problems without assuming their complicity and/or incompetence; both of which would arguable deem them unfit for continued leadership.
Therefore, unless one wanted more of the same, what sense would it make to continue supporting someone or something that has proven defective and/or flawed in recent history? After all, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
But day by day, more and more people are realizing that what we are witnessing is not the accidental deterioration of veracious systems, but rather, the revelation of the intentional and complicit corruption behind them; all packaged and sold under the guise of legitimacy, but built on a malicious framework of oligarchic manipulation.
Consider the United States government for example, an institution that is no different – in structure or functionality – than any other large corporation or union of corporations, which flourish and fail in the same manner, eventually collapsing, only to rebuild under new leadership and identity, but maintaining the same owners and intentions.
The exposed fraud and corruption of Enron and Arthur Anderson; the demise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the “golden parachute” securities of CEO’s; and the financial bailout in the duplicity of Wall Street (aka welfare for the rich), are merely microcosms of the greater culture, line-of-thinking, and values of the parent company; The United States of America, Inc.
Therefore, if the values don’t change, then the line-of-thinking doesn’t change. And if the line-of-thinking doesn’t change, then the culture doesn’t change. And if the culture doesn’t change, then it matters little who becomes the next CEO (President) of the organization.
Here are the parallels:
Company = U.S. Government
Shareholders/Board = Special Interest Groups (Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Big Business, Oil Companies, financiers, etc.)
CEO = President (i.e. Bush, Obama, etc.)
Managerial Staff = Presidential Administration (VP, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.)
Employee/Customer = The People, citizens (aka The American People)
Product = (Freedom, Life, Liberty, Security, Prosperity, Democracy)
Projects = (War on Terror, Bringing home the troops, restoring the economy, securing the U.S., mortgage crisis, etc.)
Agent = Media (TV, News, Radio)
The only difference between Government and a Corporation is that Government allows the Employee/Customer to believe that they are selecting their CEO (aka voting). In actuality, the choice for president is done by a “selection” – much like a conclave - and not an “election” as we are led to believe. The elections of 2000 and 2004 have more than proven this. Simply put, the people elect from a pre-selected set of candidates; likened to being forced to choose between liver and chick gizzards for your favorite meal, resulting in the individual choosing the one that they can stomach the most.
**In fact, if a corporation really wanted to make its employees believe that their input was valuable and appreciated and that their thoughts were instrumental in determining the direction of the company, the corporation should do the same as government and allow employees to vote for their CEO. This - although a placebo by effect - would surely promote employee loyalty by providing them the perception and the “warm and fuzzy” feeling of inclusion**
Unfortunately, voting - primarily when the people don't take the extra steps and responsibility to hold the incumbents accountable to their word - serves to be no more than a suggestion or a glorified people poll/survey. However, if the people were to take the necessary step of going beyond the vote to hold political pundits accountable to their actions and promises by way of such tools as impeachment or civil disobedience, then the vote becomes more than a voice; it becomes a virtue; but I digress.
The CEO is ALWAYS selected by the Shareholders/Board. The CEO (President) is determined by his/her ability to effectively manage and direct the company (Government) as desired by the Shareholders (Big Business) in order to increase revenue or control of the market. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the candidate who raises or spends the most money wins up to 95% of the elections; generating funds at levels of what less than 1% of citizens can afford; siphoning much of the money from non-district residents and corporations who are not even permitted to vote in the election they seek to influence. But what better way to garner support from foreign interests other than through corporate sponsorship?
The CEO (President) is only concerned with the happiness and progression of the Employee/Customer (the people) to the degree that it impacts the revenue for the Shareholders (Big Business). Therefore, a CEO’s (President’s) obligation is to the Shareholders (Big Business), NOT to the Employee/Customer (the people). A CEO who attempts to work in the best interest of the Employee/Customer (The People) in spite of the intentions of the Shareholders will be promptly fired…..or fired upon. (i.e. JFK).
The Company (Government) is more concerned with the Employee/Customers (the people's) habits than it is their happiness. Unhappiness is overlooked until it results in habits that could potentially have an adverse effect on the company’s revenue. Reason: A change of Employee/Customer habit will change the direction of the company entirely; because a change in habit is often a direct reflection in the change of values; and things control you to the degree that they control what you value the most.
Therefore, the CEO must sell a vision of the Company (government) to the Employee/Customer that is motivational and inspirational so that the Employee/Customer will continue to work hard to support and defend the company (Government) in order to assure the coffers (i.e. revenue, stocks) of the Shareholders under the misassumption that they are assuring their own [insert Enron story here].
Speeches and photo-ops are no different than commercials and advertisements that are offered by the Media (The Agent), designed to sell an image to inspire trust, hope, fear, and/or desire in a product (i.e. Freedom, Life, Liberty, Security, Prosperity); the product being an ideological aspiration that is often in direct contrast to the actual goal of the Shareholders (Big Business). The product is the motivation. The project (i.e. War on Terror, mortgage crisis, etc.) is merely a means to an end; changeable as desired, often offering no measureable and/or tangible goal. Without such earmarks, projects like the “War On Terror” can rage on indefinitely because it’s end was never intended in the first place.
However, the original business plan (the Constitution) was designed so that the true power of the company rested in the hands of the Employee/Customer (the people), who provide the greatest energy (i.e. work, money) to the company, and therefore, should reap the greatest rewards and benefits. It created checks and balances to keep the Employee/Customer (the people) safe from mismanagement and tyrannical rule; which is why we now find the CEO (President) and his Managerial Staff making changes and usurping the original business plan (the Constitution).
Contrary to popular belief, President Bush did NOT fail in his role over the last 8 years. He accomplished exactly what the Shareholders wanted him to accomplish, which is why he has been able to stave persecution from such contemptuous acts. He was a protected investment, and now, the baton has been passed to an even more effective and more protected investment; being protected to the point of receiving Secret Service assignment even before announcing his run for Presidency.
Likely, President Bush won’t be held accountable or answerable to his role in the current state of things until after he is no longer President. That way, the parties who are truly in control (i.e. Shareholders) can create the perception of change and progress, which wins the support of the masses by offering just one or a few sacrificial lambs in exchange for Employee/Customer dedication and loyalty; something that ALL companies desire.
However, as is stands today, the corporation (Government) is still controlled by the same Shareholders….or at least, the same lines-of-thinking. Therefore, the change of CEO (President) matters little; particularly, if the values, vision, and direction of the Shareholders remains the same (to stay rich and powerful).....and there is no reason for us to believe that it has changed. The Rich always want to stay rich, and power is never willfully relinquished.
The Employee/Customer (the people) is the greatest resource in the world; no business could exist without them. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Company (Government) to either keep them happy, or to keep them fearful; both of which would promote specific, predictable habits.
However, when a company doesn’t operate transparently and with integrity, and instead, resorts to corruption and deceit as a means to an end, then, it becomes imbalanced and starts losing the control and confidence of its Employees/Customers (the people), and thus, has to resort to using “fear and uncertainty” as a means of regaining and maintaining control. The company (government) must place itself in a position to where the Employee/Customer (the people) feels that they need the company more than the company needs them. Therefore, in order to remain all-powerful, more dire circumstances will be created by the company in order to promote dependency.
In such institutions, fearful people are always preferred over thinking ones, because they are quick to acquiesce and offer little resistance to a system that obviously and overtly works against their best interest.
“So helpless does slavery make men that they grow fond of it.” - Vauvenargues
With all things considered regarding the inner-workings of this giant machine of which we all play an integral part, imagine the impact and outcome if the Employee/Customer changed her thinking, her values, and resultantly, her habits. Suppose that the Employee/Customer’s got on one accord and stopped working and giving money to a company that refused to recognize and meet their needs. What would happen to the company if the Employee/Customer realized that the Company works for them – and not the other way around – and then started conducting themselves as Shareholders as opposed to Employees/Customers?
But, as with most companies during the introduction of a new CEO, expectations are running high; based primarily on the anticipation of success, change, growth, and progress. The stocks increase; and for the first several months, you can expect positive reports of progress and change (regardless if it is true or not), because this is absolutely necessary in quelling the anxieties of the Employee/Customer and Business Partners (foreign companies), and fostering an environment of prosperity, freedom, and security (The Product). All will intentionally appear well and successful…………until.
Unfortunately, due to the excitement, fanfare, and momentum of this historic moment, all forms of constructive criticism that are not aligned with those of the status quo or popular opinion will be deemed as seditious and/or antagonistic, and will go largely ignored; resulting in the true opportunities for change to go unnoticed and under-appreciated during the most opportune times; that is, until a catastrophic event presents itself and places us in a position to where we are forced to reckon with our greatest rival and limitation: Ourselves.
“It seldom happens that a man changes his life through his habitual reasoning. No matter how fully he may sense the new plans and aims revealed to him by reason, he continues to plod along in the old paths until his life becomes frustrating and unbearable…he finally makes the change only when his usual life can no longer be tolerated.” - Tolstoy
Peaces,
Tungz
