Permanent War Reaches the Mall

mall image As the United States continues to cater to its enemy’s cardinal war aim — perpetual war between reactionary Islam and existing imperial powers, that enemy seems to be winning not only on that ultimate front, but is now also apparently learning to take its fight to the imperial powers’ vital organs. Hence, the reactionary Islamists’ recent announcement of their intent to attack shopping malls.

As the insane half of the U.S. population clamors to speed up the self-defeat and sanctify the war criminals and war criminal abettors (e.g. Bradley Cooper) involved in Clint Eastwood’s Triumph of the Will American Sniper, the mall owners have this to say:

“There won’t be any mad dash or scramble to improve security because security is constantly evolving and improving,” Jesse Tron, spokesman for the International Council of Shopping Centers, told USA TODAY on Monday. “Security officials are not reactionary because they have been doing this all along.”

Translation: “We won’t be spending any more money on security.”

Share Button

Verizon Must Go

guillotine Verizon, the mega-corporation that told its employee David Strayer to stop telling it about the massively homicidal nature of encouraging people to use cell phones inside automobiles, now has this to say about the simple, long-overdue idea of ruling that internet access is, like snail-mail, broadcast airspace, and transportation, a public utility:

“The FCC can address any harmful behavior without taking this radical step,” Michael Glover, senior VP at Verizon Communications Inc., said in an e-mailed statement. “It is counterproductive because heavy regulation of the Internet will create uncertainty and chill investment.” [Source: Advertising Age, February 4, 2015]

First off: ROFL about that “investment” trope. Verizon and its partners-in-crime are blatant organized theft on the biggest scale, and, as such, are huge, very active obstacles to the proper, economical investment in and distribution of modern communications infrastructure, activities that are the natural and Constitutionally-mandated endeavors of the United States Postal Service.

Secondly:

O corporate death penalty, where art thou?

Share Button

Against “Neoliberalism”

orrery Where and when did what passes for the left swallow “neoliberalism” as the preferred word for “capitalism”?

This linguistic transition is a major case of C. Wright Mills’ liberal practicality, a.k.a. dunder-headed chickening-out by would-be lefties.

It is also a major vector of conceptual error and misdirection.

Not the least of such errors is the presumption that the word “neoliberalism” is “very common, recognizable.”

Balderdash. The word is certainly rampant in the sphere of what remains of the left, but we all know, or at least ought to know, how isolated and ignored we are. In the wider world, to use the term “neoliberalism” is to speak a foreign tongue, as well as to suggest that one’s ideas and claims are so confusing as to need their own special introductions.

Everybody drawing breath knows what capitalism is. “Neoliberalism,” meanwhile, always requires at least a long, convoluted paragraph of explanation as a preface to its further usage.

So, one has to ask: Are we trying to stay moribund?

And while we’re at it, pray tell: When was it that capitalists ever favored or pursued anything but the package of things that supposedly define “neoliberalism”? There remains the powerful, long-running liberal myth of the post-WWII Golden Age of caipitalist acceptance of equality and welfare state programs. That, however, is simply false history. At the level of overclass motives and policy prescriptions, there was then and is now nothing “neo” going in the boardrooms and the private jets.

The Reagan Restoration was — and remains — a real thing (even though it started under Carter), but redoubling is not invention, and laissez faire/free trade (the liberalism of the concept, as distinct from the newer, wider modern meaning as a tag for those who think capitalism isn’t perfect and needs some public correction) has never been the only, or even the main, practical essence of capitalism. The state, despite the ideology and the fake history, has always been right in there, and massively so.

This whole “neoliberalism” thing is, to lift a phrase from E.P. Thompson, an orrery of errors. The sooner we drop it in favor of simplicity, clarity, and directness, the better. Kind of like “consumer.”

Share Button

Not Sexism

rat pressing lever Big business marketers like to pretend they have social consciences, despite the world-historic immorality of their trade. One way they strike the pose is to prattle on about racial and gender diversity within their professional ranks.

Along the way, they often throw in suggestions that such concerns somehow validate what they do to those of us on the receiving end of their labors.

Consider this plaint from Scott Karambis, “VP of marketing and brand strategy at SapientNitro, a creative, brand and technology agency,” who adds this aside as he reports on his professional diversity travails in today’s edition of Ad Age:

“Women control roughly 85% of consumer purchases, yet 91% of women say advertisers don’t understand them.”

Mr. Karambis thinks this has to do with marketers’ sexism toward their target audiences. While sexism and racism in advertising are utterly foundational and remain core selling strategies, in this case, that 91% reaction is about something the Karambises of the world simply can’t admit to themselves.

Think about it: What percentage of men say advertisers don’t understand them? Despite mens’ comparative intellectual and attitudinal deficits, it’s undoubtedly very high, too.

And that is because advertising is manipulation, not a form of empathy or a genuine service. By definition, effective marketing is always a form of non-understanding, for the simple reason that corporate marketing exists to push people to do things that are not in their genuine interest.

Everybody but the diligent, self-admiring wheel-turners knows this.

Share Button

Obummercare in Action

Over 30 million residents of the United States are still uninsured, as planned by the architects of the Heritage Foundation’s successful plan for averting civilized behavior public, single-payer medical insurance.

Those few who gain insurance under RomneyObamacare generally gain shitty insurance with high “deductibles.” According to The Wall Street Journal:

“[T]he share of the population with high-deductible insurance plans has grown significantly since 2009. That year, around 22.5% of respondents had private coverage that required them to pay a larger share of their upfront coverage costs in exchange for a lower premium. In early 2014, some 36% had plans with an annual deductible of at least $1,250 for an individual or $2,500 for a family.”

And those who get this magical gift of terrible coverage for access to the unrestrained U.S. medical racket profession? Here they are in the Soviet pose that comes with their victimization ability to seek new insurance:

line for insurance

And the other big result of RomneyObamacare? Also as planned by Heritage, per today’s New York Times:

“[S]ince the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, the relationship between the Obama administration and insurers has evolved into a powerful, mutually beneficial partnership that has been a boon to the nation’s largest private health plans and led to a profitable surge in their Medicaid enrollment.”

And they say planning can’t work…

Share Button