The point is, ladies and gentleman, is
that greed - for lack of a better word - is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
- Michael Douglas (Gordon Gekko) in
Oliver Stone's 1987 film Wall Street.
It's too easy to externalize
responsibility by pinning the blame on villains. Every people has used the
symbolism of demons in an attempt to extirpate something within themselves. The
Jamie Dimon story (CEO van JP Morgan Chase, de op één na grootste bank ter wereld. svh)
shows that something more fundamental needs repair – in our economy, in our
society, in us.
Don't get me wrong. That isn't meant
to suggest that we're guilty of fraud, or greed or fiscal mismanagement. But we
definitely have some work to do.
Chuck Prince. Robert Rubin. Lloyd
Blankfein. Jeff Immelt. Brian Moynihan. Jamie Dimon. The bank CEO names roll
off the tongue almost as rapidly as the billions pass algorithmically through
cyberspace. What happens if one falls, as Prince did? Another takes his place
before his predecessor's shadow has left the ground he was standing on.
And we use the male pronoun
advisedly, since so far they've all been male. Male, and ambitious, and
aggressive. To a man, in fact, they've embodied the aggression we profess to
idolize as a society, in our leaders and in our athletes, until it gets us
where we live.
If Jamie Dimon and his peers have any
legitimate complaint about the condemnation that's heaped upon them today, it's
this: A few years ago you praised us for doing exactly what you condemn us for
today. You're the ones who made Gordon Gekko a culture hero, these bankers
might say, not us.
Can't you people at least be
consistent? […]
Before you condemn them… too harshly,
remember: People in great fear sometimes overcompensate. And, as economist
Robert Johnson notes in this compelling video discussion with Cornel West, our
most powerful financial executives live in fear today. They feel, not without
reason, that their way of life is being threatened.
A change in their way of life might
be good for the rest of us, but those kinds of insecurities don't bring out the
best in people. Given the power bankers possess, that should worry us. […]
JPMorgan Chase is a perfect example
of modern corporate leadership in its native habitat: at the center of a
complicated matrix of human desires which it manipulates to suit its own ends.
And you and I are allowing it to continue.
Deze leegte, waarin de overgrote meerderheid
leeft, geeft ‘con artists’ de noodzakelijke ruimte om in te opereren, en ‘you
and I are allowing it to continue.’ Een van de belangrijkste oorzaken
dat
people cannot face evil is fear. The
true nature of psychopaths is the stuff of childhood nightmares. Many people
simply cannot deal with the fear
this realization causes and so to sooth their nerves they revert to an
infantile strategy of denial and magical thinking. If they do not acknowledge
the existence of monsters, then the monsters cannot hurt them,
zoals de Canadese auteur Stefan
Verstappen schreef in Defense Against The
Psychopath. A Brief Introduction to Human Predators. (2011)
Dit verklaart de escapistische
houding van Mak en zijn mainstream publiek die weigeren de werkelijkheid te
accepteren omdat, zoals Mak mij schreef:
ik niet zonder hoop [kan], Stan, dat
klinkt misschien wat pathetisch, maar het is toch zo.
Feiten spelen daarbij geen doorslaggevende rol, want zoals hij
tegenover mij opmerkte:
Jij ziet veel dingen scherper en
eerder, maar…
inzicht moet het daarbij afleggen
tegen de ‘hoop’ dat er licht is aan het einde van de tunnel. Er moet een
verlossing in het verschiet liggen, ook al is dit niet het geval. Het probleem daarbij
is dat degene die het overtuigendst belooft dat hij ‘change we can believe in’
zal brengen de meeste aanhangers trekt, met als gevolg dat we onder de CEO’s
van grote concerns, in de politiek en in de commerciele westerse massamedia het
hoogste percentage ‘con men’ tegenkomen. Dat is de voornaamste reden dat de wereld gerund wordt door psychopaten die nu de toekomst van de hele mensheid op het spel zetten. Dat
is geenszins vreemd. Nog afgezien van het feit dat psychopaten in een ziek systeem
het 't verst schoppen, geldt voor de meeste mensen, hoe fatsoenlijk
die ook mogen zijn, dat ‘in a psychopathic culture, everyone must
adopt a ruthless attitude as a survival strategy.’ Hoewel volgens westers
wetenschappelijk onderzoek sociopaten
slechts 3 tot 4 procent van de mannelijke bevolking uitmaken en minder dan 1
procent van de vrouwelijke bevolking, zijn de normen en waarden van de
kapitalistische consumptiecultuur dermate verziekt dat de psychopaten gebruik kunnen maken van ondergeschikten die gedwongen zijn hun ‘moral insanity-game’ mee
te spelen. De speculant Gordon Gekko zegt het in Wall Street met deze woorden:
The richest one percent of
this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third
of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on
interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real
estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American
public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make
the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper
clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there
wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're
living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part
of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot
to teach you.
Dit is precies de
mentaliteit van de mensen die vandaag de dag de macht in handen hebben. De
uitgeholde ‘democratie’ kan daar niet effectief tegen optreden. Ons
systeem wordt gekenmerkt door het ‘Killer Instinct,’ en het
resultaat is ernaar. Verstappen:
Most
psychopaths leave a long trail of destruction and heartbreak and will try to
cover their tracks. A lack of background information is therefore as suspicious
as a history of betrayals. Another of their fundamental flaws is a lack of
patience and the incredible energy they use to maintain their façade… In
conclusion, the study of Psychopathy is an important new tool… in understanding
the source behind many social ills.
In geen van zijn
geschriften heeft de zich prominent presenterende Geert Mak dit aspect van de
westerse maatschappij beschreven, laat staan geanalyseerd en in een bredere context
geplaatst. Sterker nog, op pagina 521 van zijn Reizen zonder John
schreef Mak nog in 2012 met een pendante stelligheid:
Zullen
Steinbeck en zijn pessimistische geestverwanten alsnog gelijk krijgen? In 1960
sloegen ze… met hun sombere voorspellingen de plank mis. Amerika zou na 1960
nog decennia van grote voorspoed beleven.
Mak verwees daarmee naar alleen
de materiele ‘voorspoed’ van vooral de Amerikaanse
middenklasse, zonder erbij te vermelden dat sinds het einde van de jaren
zeventig het reële inkomen van de Amerikaanse werknemer niet meer
steeg en dat die stagnatie werd opgevangen doordat Amerikanen op grote schaal
begonnen te lenen om aan de ‘voorspoed’ te kunnen blijven deelnemen.
Zoals we nu weten stortte dit systeem tijdens de kredietcrisis van 2008 ineen
met als gevolg een economische depressie die volgens experts ‘Shows Uncanny Parallels to Great
Depression’ die na de beurskrach van 1929 de westerse wereld in zijn greep hield
en waaraan alleen de Tweede Wereldoorlog een eind wist te maken. Door de
huidige crisis
the American middle class, once the
only effective counter weight to Wall Street greed, has been decimated. Over 25
million people, in what was the US middle class, are now in full-blown crisis
mode and urgently need to increase their income…
Every seven seconds, another American
family is kicked out of their home. We are confronted by a lost generation of
young workers who cannot find jobs… and bankruptcies continue to skyrocket…
a revealing new survey suggests that an outraged significant majority is coming to the
realization that an organized financial cartel has taken over the government
and robbed the US public blind.
Terwijl meer dan 7 miljoen Amerikaanse gezinnen hun woning verloren,
kregen de corrupte
bankiers meer dan een biljoen dollar aan belastinggeld om hun banken overeind te houden. Ondertussen is
the crisis of foreclosure and lost wealth not over. Every three months, 250,000 new families enter the foreclosure process. According to a May 2013 report of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), more than 13 million homes are still underwater, which increases the risk of foreclosure.
Tegelijkertijd zijn de inkomens
stagnant or falling. Foreclosures are tearing through communities, and
falling home prices are destroying family equity. It's like a reverse New Deal.
28 mei 2013 werd bekend dat:
HALF OF AMERICA IS IN OR NEAR POVERTY
AND IT'S GETTING WORSE
The Census Bureau has reported that 15% of
Americans live in poverty. A shocking figure. But it's actually much worse.
Inequality is spreading like a shadowy disease through our country, infecting
more and more households, and leaving a shrinking number of financially secure
families to maintain the charade of prosperity.
1.
Almost half of Americans had NO assets in 2009
Analysis of Economic Policy Institute data shows that Mitt
Romney's famous 47 percent, the alleged 'takers,' have taken
nothing. Their debt exceeded their assets in 2009.
2. It's
Even Worse 3 Years Later
Since the recession, the disparities
have continued to grow. An OECD report states that "inequality
has increased by more over the past three years to the end of 2010 than in the
previous twelve," with the U.S. experiencing one of the widest gaps among
OECD countries. The 30-year decline in wages has worsened since the
recession, as low-wage jobs have replaced formerly secure middle-income
positions.
3. Based
on wage figures, half of Americans are in or near poverty.
Desondanks bleef Mak
beweren dat 'bij Obama het erg [speelt] over het verdedigen van verworven rechten.' Nog treuriger dan deze leugen is het
feit dat Mak niet beseft dat ‘Steinbeck en zijn pessimistische
geestverwanten,’ zoals bijvoorbeeld Jack Kerouac, wiens werk door Mak
als ‘egotripperij’ wordt gekwalificeerd, het niet over de materiele
‘voorspoed’ hadden, maar kritiek hadden op de spirituele
leegte van die materialistische Amerikaanse consumptiecultuur. Kritische
Amerikaanse intellectuelen en kunstenaars waren al langere tijd op zoek naar de
niet materialistische invulling van de ‘Amerikaanse Droom,’
die voor de jeugdige Mak in de ‘provinciestad' waar hij opgroeide alleen
maar de komst van ‘Donald Duck’ betekende en ‘platte pakjes
kauwgom,’ en niet te vergeten ‘pakjes groen-witte poeder waaruit
een huisvrouw een pan soep kan toveren: California heet het spul. California
fluisteren we, California.’ Het is vanuit deze kleinburgerlijke context
dat hij het imperium beschrijft. ‘Amerika een droomland’ waarvoor
hij ‘atijd al’ een ‘geheime liefde’ koesterde, zo
laat hij zijn publiek op de achterflap van zijn boek weten. En ook zijn
bewering bij de EO Radio dat
Het beter is voor Nederland en de
internationale gemeenschap dat Obama de verkiezingen wint,
getuigt van een totaal gebrek aan inzicht in de drijfveren van imperia.
Ik vrees dat Mak buitengewoon weinig van de geschiedenis begrijpt. Zijn
geschriften staan in het teken van wishful thinking. De vooraanstaande
Amerikaanse journalist Glenn Greenwald schreef in dit verband op 27 mei 2013
naar aanleiding van Obama’s beloften:
what should be beyond dispute at this
point is that Obama's speeches have very little to do with Obama's actions,
except to the extent that they often signal what he intends not to do. How many
times does Obama have to deliver a speech embracing a
set of values and polices, only to watch as he then proceeds
to do the opposite, before one ceases to view his public
proclamations as predictive of his future choices? Speeches, especially
presidential ones, can be significant unto themselves in shaping public
perceptions and setting the terms of the debate, so Obama's explicit discussion
of the ‘ultimate’ ending of the war on terror can be reasonably viewed as
positive.
But it signals nothing about what he
actually will do. I'm genuinely amazed that there are still smart people who
treat these speeches as though they do. As Esquire's Tom Junod put it after
the speech: ‘if the Lethal Presidency reminds us of anything, it's
that we should be a long way from judging this president on his rhetoric or his
portrayal of himself as a moral actor.’ The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf added that
Obama ‘has a long record of broken promises and misleading rhetoric on civil
liberties, and it would be naive to assume that he'll follow through on everything
he said on Thursday.’
What Obama has specialized in from
the beginning of his presidency is putting pretty packaging on ugly and
discredited policies. The cosmopolitan, intellectualized flavor of his advocacy
makes coastal elites and blue state progressives instinctively confident in the
Goodness of whatever he's selling, much as George W. Bush's swaggering,
evangelical cowboy routine did for red state conservatives. The CIA presciently recognized this
as a valuable asset back in 2008 when they correctly predicted that Obama's
election would stem the tide of
growing antiwar sentiment in western Europe by becoming the new, more
attractive face of war, thereby converting hordes of his admirers from war
opponents into war supporters. This dynamic has repeated itself over and over
in other contexts, and has indeed been of great value to the guardians of the
status quo in placating growing public discontent about their economic
insecurity and increasingly unequal distribution of power and wealth. However
bad things might be, we at least have a benevolent, kind-hearted and very thoughtful
leader doing everything he can to fix it.
The clear purpose of Obama's speech
was to comfort progressives who are growing progressively more uncomfortable
with his extreme secrecy, wars on press freedom, seemingly endless militarism
and the like. For the most part, their discomfort is far more about the image
being created of the politician they believed was unique and even transcendent
than it is any substantive opposition to his policies. No progressive wants to
believe that they placed such great trust and adoration in a political figure
who is now being depicted as some sort of warped progeny of Richard Nixon and
Dick Cheney. That creates internal discomfort and even shame. This speech was
designed to allow progressives once again to see Barack Obama as they have
always wanted to see him, his policies notwithstanding: as a deeply thoughtful,
moral, complex leader who is doing his level best, despite often insurmountable
obstacles, to bring about all those Good Things that progressives thought they
would be getting when they empowered him.
The terrorism speech, when dissected,
provided very little in the way of actual concrete substance. Its most heralded
passage, as the ACLU
quickly pointed out, did nothing more than call for the ‘ultimate’
repeal of the AUMF; ‘the time to take our country off the global warpath and
fully restore the rule of law is now,’ said the ACLU's executive director
Anthony Romero, ‘not at some indeterminate future point.’ Moreover, he noted, ‘the
president still claims broad authority to carry out targeted killings far from
any battlefield, and there is still insufficient transparency.’
Het zijn leugens die de mainstream opiniemakers als
Mak verspreiden die elke keer opnieuw serieus aan de kaak dienen te worden gesteld. Alleen op kennis
kan hoop gebaseerd zijn, niet op vrijblijvend wishful thinking. Morgen
meer.
 |
| Geert Mak: Door de macht tot Ridder in het Legioen van Eer verheven, vanwege zijn 'bijdrage aan het Europese Project.' |
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten