Goldman Sachs: Bloodsucking Vampire Aliens?

Goldman Sachs: Bloodsucking Vampire Aliens?

Goldman Sachs – covering the face of humanity?

 

Goldman Sachs is furious at what Matt Taibbi has written in Rolling Stone. This is apparently not absolutely fresh news but we heard the magic phrase for the first time this morning.

It’s from Taibbi’s article, “The Great American Bubble Machine”, in Rolling Stone about the place of Goldman Sachs in the modern world.

The memorable line is this description of Goldman Sachs:

“ The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

But then there is this, too:

“ Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

[ … ]

The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased.

Taibbi also claims that Goldman is at the root of the astronomical oil price rises over the last year or so because oil has been commodified in the Goldman Sachs way so that every barrel of oil was bought and sold 27 times before it ever reached its end user. That’s 27 times a profit has to be made – sort of like compound interest, and your economics teacher told you how good that is at increasing your bank balance.

You might think, as Goldman Sachs has suggested, that his article is “an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories” and so it might be — unless it is true. Taibbi certainly has filled his piece with checkable facts and figures, such as the astonishing reach of the company and its alumni, including: bailout czar, Paulson; Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary and then chairman of Citigroup; John Thain, chief of Merrill Lynch; Robert Steel, head of Wachovia, who “scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in goldenparachute payments as his bank was selfdestructing”; Joshua Bolten, Bush’s chief of staff during the bailout; Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff; and Ed Liddy, whom Paulson put in charge of bailedout insurance giant AIG. Etcetera etcetera etcetera…

Not to forget, as it seems Taibbi does, that Malcolm Turnbull is also an alumnus of Goldman Sachs: chair and managing director of Goldman Sachs Australia (1997-2001) and a partner with Goldman Sachs and Co (1998-2001). All we need is another ex-Goldman Sachs partner to become PM of Australia …

Read the full Rolling Stone article

Stark reading, and enough material to keep him writing for 7 (online) pages, including this potentially even more worrying note:

“ They’ve been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they’re preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

According to this, if you want to rule the world, join Goldman Sachs!

 

Kev’s Massive Package

Kev’s Massive Package

 

It takes Balls to Punish the Jobless

 

The thing about the unemployed is that, well, they’re powerless; or rather, they’re disempowered, particularly by the feeling of being unemployed in a culture in which what you do, not to mention how much you make, pretty much defines who you are and what you’re worth.

On top of that they’re disempowered by the restrictions of poverty – the limitations on food (especially healthy food) and travel.

Unemployed people in Australia are placed by government and its proxies, the Job Networks and ancillary services, under stricter control orders and behavioural requirements than the most oppressed employed people.

What has to be understood is that unemployment in Australia is not so much a political, nor an economic, issue as it is a moral issue.

Unemployed people are suffering.

> Suffering is punishment.

> Punishment is retribution for sin.

> Therefore:    > The unemployed have only themselves to blame.

As my (thankfully ex)-father-in-law would have said, “If they want a job why don’t they just bloodywell get off their arse and go out and get one?”

The unemployed are not just lazy; they’re devious in their determination to avoid work.

Because unemployment is a moral issue and the jobless are immoral (obviously) the attitude towards them and treatment of them by the employment service industry is justified.

The patronising and sometimes almost bullying attitudes of (some , not all)  “case managers” towards the trapped victims — off whose misfortune they feed — is justified by their demonstrated inferiority.

And so it was easy for Rudd and the rest of the increasingly hideously Howard-like government to “overlook” the unemployed in their gladhanding stimulation. They’ve got no power, no comeback and no voice.

If anyone needs a boost, it’s the unemployed.

Those who participate in work for the dole activities receive a fortnightly income boost of … $20.80. This is supposed to compensate them for the additional transport costs required by their attendance up to four days a week and any additional costs associated with travelling to interviews up to 90 minutes away. At a maximum of $1.30 each way for a full-time work for the dole participant, you can see how very generous this feels for people who are struggling to both pay rent and eat food in the same week.

If Rudd wants a bit of instant stimulation, if he wants the money he provides to go immediately into the ‘economy’ rather than being saved and hoarded, then if he gives it to the unemployed it won’t even touch the sides.

Kevin is aware of the problem (the electoral problem, anyway) with the punishment of the jobless his massive package means.

“ The Prime Minister said yesterday the next COAG meeting would develop a plan to deal with 300,000 more people who would be out of work by 2010, in a dramatic upward revision of the unemployment figures that means an extra 100,000 people jobless by June.

“At the top of our agenda we’ll be dealing with the whole question of the problem of unemployment, the problem of labour market programs, the proper co-ordination of commonwealth and state labour market programs … in the most seamless and sophisticated way possible,” Mr Rudd said yesterday.

As the Government tries to create 90,000 jobs in labour-intensive industries across the nation – building schools and homes to slow the expected rise in unemployment – the latest economic and fiscal outlook predicts joblessness will surge to 7 per cent in 2009-10, up from 4.5 per cent at present.

So far the Government has provided no additional assistance for those without jobs, promising it will have more to say on labour market programs in coming weeks. Welfare groups are angry that the unemployed received none of the handouts in Tuesday’s stimulus package, and the dole was kept at its current level. Mr Rudd said he and Employment Minister Julia Gillard had been looking at options to help the unemployed but had not made a final decision.

“We’re going through a whole range of options, dealing with kids just coming out of the school system who are going to find it difficult entering the labour market, dealing with the challenge of people who are in jobs who may lose their jobs, the geographical concentration of that, the adequacy of the information flow, and the adequacy of supporting labour market programs for all the above, and the existing social security network as well,” the Prime Minister said.

Yes, Rudd is going to do what he has always done. Develop a plan, have more to say later, look at options, assess information flow, manage programs, make a ‘final decision’ in the fullness of time.

Sounds a lot like Peter Garrett, doesn’t it.

The jobless don’t really care how shiny the solution is. They don’t really care whether or not it’s bureaucratically-acceptably seamless, shiny and ‘sophisticated’. The Rudd government — like many before it, it’s true — is hopelessly out of touch with the reality of human experience. But then, you can’t expect more from a Sirhumphreybot MkII.

The trouble for Uncle Kev is that giving money to the supposedly profligate, the wasteful, the idle, the smelly, the drug-raddled, the diseased, the incompetent, the incontinent – the, you know, unemployed – is not electorally attractive and they won’t suffer too much backlash from the good voters – the, you know, employed. Not until there are so many unemployed and pissed-off voters that they might look like losing an election.

The sleaze of the government, the proof that it is politicking all around this, was shown in the interview, with Albanese we think, where the subject of the disenfranchising of the unemployed from the Big Splurge was brought up. The Minister claimed that the unemployed had not been left out. They would benefit, he said, from the job creation efforts that would flow from increased infrastructure spending. This on a day when unemployment is supposed to be about four and a half percent and is expected to grow to over seven per cent over the next year.

Explain again to us how the unemployed are going to benefit from job creation schemes which will at best only slightly slow the increase in unemployment.

If you imagine that the Turnbull Costello party would be any better, you haven’t been around much, have you.

They are unremittingly awful.

Just awful.

The only thing still in Kevin Rudd’s favour is that he is not them.

Not quite.

Not yet.

The coalition’s only role, as they say, may be to serve as a warning to others.

Heather Ridout wants the unemployed to be trained up in readiness for the boom times that will follow the recession [SORRY – REALLY VERY SORRY. SORRY.]

The unemployed ALREADY get trained all the time. All sorts of programs; for example: how to write an application letter that looks exactly like all the others (and tells exactly the same lies and is full of precisely the same bullshit) to an employer who is considering two hundred other identical applications, and is totally over it. For instance.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians are already being trained for jobs that simply don’t exist and won’t for a long time.

In fact, the boom industry for the next few years is going to be … TRAINING!

Wait!

That’s the magical solution!

An endless loop of the unemployed employed to train each other to train each other.

Get your Cert IV now!

 

 

Why Turnbull is Wrong

Why Turnbull is Wrong

 

Isslikadreemcumtroo

 

Turnbull is wrong because it is foolhardy to stand between 20 million people and a shitload of money. (Thanks Paul)

Turnbull is wrong because he thinks that there is any debate to be won about whether the pile of money should be shovelled out or not.

Turnbull is wrong because he doesn’t realise that at least 10 million of those Australians have already spent that money in their heads.

He doesn’t understand that they can already see and smell and taste the things they will buy; can already feel the relief from the financial burden they’ve been carrying. They’ve already made their decisions. They’re just waiting for delivery.

Telling them they can’t have it is like brutally waking you from a beautiful dream in which you’ve been expertly stimulated by gorgeous 18-year-old twins who, miraculously, can’t keep their hands and tongues off you.¹ “Isslikadreemcumtroo,” as the Olympians say.

And along comes bloody Turnbull and tips a bucket of ice and water over you and tells you you’re late for work.

He’s not “courageous”; he’s just bloody stupid.

So is Julie Bishop who told Fran this morning that rather than spend all this money right now we should “wait and see” how it pans out.

From what the economic witchdoctors are telling us, that’s like being in a rubber ducky rushing towards a waterfall and saying,

“Yes, I know it looks like foam spray and it does sound like billions of gallons of water thundering over a huge precipice but I think we should save our energy and not start rowing until we are close enough to look over and confirm that it is a waterfall.”

One of the opposition’s own made the most cogent point so far, early this morning, when he pointed out that it may be that Rudd has engineered the elements of the stimulus package to mask the signs of a recession. It will look like a recession, waddle like a recession, and quack like a recession but it won’t BE a recession. Statistically.

(Meanwhile, apparently Peter Costello has decided that he would like another go at not becoming Prime Minister.)

 

¹No personal offence intended. We just picked on some fantasy we saw on TV last night which seemed to be a Work for the Dole project for some of the more photogenic unemployed Hollywood starlets. Please adjust to suit your personal preferences.

 

Just a couple of questions…

Just a couple of questions…

 

We have just a couple of questions.

One older; one new

 

Firstly

Some economists get paid a lot, we assume, at least the “guru”-type ones who appear on television and write books.

What do they get paid for exactly?  To divine the future, supposedly, with their charts and their intuition.

So with so many thousands of highly-paid gurus sharing their wisdom with the world for huge fees, how come only perhaps a handful had any idea whatever of the reality of the economic situation we find ourselves in today?

Yes, it’s true that a very few economists predicted it. But with several thousand economists making such a broad range of predictions a few have to get it right, or luck out.

The ones who did have become instant celebrities. And Satyajit Das is the darling of the ABC across the board.

You might wonder how they get away with it. To us [pace Nicholas Gruen] there is no noticeable difference between economists and, say, astrologers, or witchdoctors, or fortune-tellers, with their secret-mystic language, their rattling bones, their scattered entrails, their magical scrapings in the dirt, their dramatic show of divine inspiration and their theatrical gravitas.

But now here they go again, unbowed and unashamed, wise after the event, explaining what happened and how and, for yet more money, rattling their bones about what is yet to come.

As if they had any idea!

The real question is:

how have we let them get away with it?

Secondly…

We are told that a fiscal stimulus is all the go. In fact, if we put pink bats into every roof in the country for a mere several billion dollars, we will produce a greenhouse gas reduction equal to removing 1 million cars from the road. Our paltry greenhouse target — of, what is it, 5% ? — would be achieved in a minute, about ten years ahead of schedule or something; after which we could start really getting serious about it.

The question is:

if it was always this easy why was getting the government to come at even the measliest reduction so bloody difficult? You would have thought the entire government was getting a bikini wax, one hair at a time.

The screaming!

The struggling!

The biting and kicking!

Or like root canal therapy without an anaesthetic.

The fact appears to be that this current “emergency” is relatively — and hopefully — time limited (but who knows? — it’s economists who are telling us this…).

Global warming is a much greater emergency, will last thousands of years longer and affect billions more people, not to mention other living things. If you were willing to go into deficit for something, this ought to be that thing.

 

 

[Clarification: Sir Roger does not wear a bikini or have personal experience of waxing, but once assisted with a home-based procedure. He still has the fingernail scars to prove it. He did, however, suffer an excruciating anaesthetic-free root canal treatment and thinks he would prefer to give birth to a horse.]

‘I’m Sir Roger and I’m Fucked’

‘I’m Sir Roger and I’m Fucked’

 

This is not for you

 

Really. We just want to acknowledge ourselves privately but publicly (it makes sense to us, anyway). It’s not meant to be onanistically self-congratulatory, except in the sense that we have achieved some things and we want to record them.
So this is a stocktake for posterity, if you like, that marks a moment, a milestone.

Yes, ValuesAustralia is two years old. This is our 712th post. Singlehanded, eh, Clubtroppo, Larvatus Prodeo, RoadtoSurfdom etc. etc.? That’s almost one a day. (There used to be a billboard for One A Day vitamin pills at the corner of Victoria Rd and Rowntree Street at Blackwattle Bay in Sydney. There was a picture of a man and a woman. The woman was saying, “I’m Jenny and I give John One A Day.” Soon a graffiti artist had added, “I’m John and I’m fucked!”)

And, yes, we’re just about fucked, ourselves. We’ve got a rotator cuff from all the typing and mouse clicking, especially during October and November last year.

(We went to the radiologist. “What seems to be the problem?” “I’ve got a sore shoulder.” “Hmm…we’ll do an ultrasound and an x-ray…… Hmm…. Hmmmmmm, our expert analysis of the ultrasound and x-ray indicates you have a sore shoulder. You’ll have to stop using it for a while.” “Thanks….What?)

We’ve never paid for any advertising. We’ve never submitted ValuesAustralia to any search engine. Nevertheless, we got ourselves listed on Google within 24 hours of launching the site. We tried to register the site with dmoz.org (The Open Source Directory) – as you do – but it wasn’t taking orders, and by the time it came back on line months later, ValuesAustralia was already magically listed!

We’ve been #1 for “Australian Values” on Google, Yahoo, Live and Ask most of the time for more than a year and a half. We’re #12 for “values” on Google worldwide, out of 314,000,000 results and on google.com.au we’re #2 for “values” out of 307,000,000. We’re #1 on google worldwide and Australia for “Australian political values” out of about 400,000 results.

Our Google Page Rank is 4 (used to be 5 but they changed the algorithm) which is respectable but we’d prefer a 5 or a 6.

We’ve had over 300,000 aggregate visitors and more than 75,000 spam messages (thank you, Akismet).

Earlier this year we were consistently getting more than 1000 visitors a day – over 30,000 a month, which is okay, although nothing like the big guys.

We’ve made friends all over the world and especially in Australia. We are in the top 1% of websites worldwide. We are popular in Saudi Arabia – amongst the top 42,000 favourite sites for Saudis. (That worries us just a bit…Say hullo to Al for us…) We appreciate our readers and those who choose to comment from time to time. We thought a scarcity of comments was a Bad Thing, a Failure, but we noticed that one of the most popular, most entertaining bloggers we know of, Whatever It Is, I’m Against It, doesn’t get heaps, either – a few, but not tens like Possum or hundreds and thousands like William the PollBludger.

In May 2007 ValuesAustralia was picked up by the “Stay In Touch” column at the Sydney Morning Herald, accusing us of “rhetoric”.

One of Sir Roger’s posts was selected by ClubTroppo and On Line Opinion in January 2008 as one of the top 40 posts in Australia for 2007. We’re very proud of that.

But it’s a post we made early in 2007 that we are still most proud of. Ken Parish at ClubTroppo called it

“quite possibly the best piece of passionate, angry polemic I’ve ever read, certainly on a blog. ‘Roger Migently’ is roused to extraordinary heights of eloquence… ”

Yes, Troppo has been good to us and we mourn the passing of Missing Link and Ken’s prolonged work-induced(?) absence. We were also congratulated by Richard Neville (HomePageDaily) and Steven Poole whose Unspeak blog is our benchmark for economy, clarity, style and wit.

We have enjoyed the journey so far and we have no intention at this stage of stopping, although we have slowed down (work, you know).

Bobbo the Clown

Our favourite person in the world, of course, is the clown, Bob Correll (above), Deputy Secretary of DIC, OPM, because he wrote us the letter which inspired our outburst. As we discovered he was (and appears still to be) the person who had taken over departmental responsibility for “Borders, Compliance, Detention and Technology”, or in other words, perhaps, for keeping innocent kiddies locked up in the desert, deporting Australian citizens, supporting the failed state of Nauru, making the lives of genuine refugees a misery, doing it to please the Minister, and all at the touch of a computer key. Previously he had been the driving force behind developing and implementing Job Network, or “how to design exquisite, personalised punishment for people who are already struggling with the stress of being unemployed”. Godluvvya, Bob! How’s the Volvo? How’s the kids? How do you sleep at night?

One of the most satisfying things is how we always beat the Immigration Department on Google.

Our second favourite person is Mick Keelty, just for being such a hopeless buffoon and continually making appalling stuff-ups for us to make fun of. G’bye, Mick.

Anyway, just for the record.

(And a special “hi!” to Lang!)

Drugs are Bad

Drugs are Bad

 M’Kay?

 I mean, some drugs are bad. Just bad. 
Some drugs are good, like medicine.

Some drugs, well, they’re legal even if they kill you, like cigarettes, or, like alcohol, kill other people you run into. But drugs drugs are just B-A-D. Inherently. In and of themselves. Drugs are morally bad. M’Kay?

After all, drugs cause crime. Drugs cause illness. Drugs cause violence and even death – by overdoses and suicides. Drugs cause the breakup of families and relationships.

Drugs cost the economy billions of dollars a year and strain the health care and welfare systems to breaking point.
Actually, to be more precise, illegal drugs cost the economy billions of dollars a year and strain the health care and welfare systems to breaking point.

So how come drugs like heroin and cocaine cause so much crime and devastation? Do drugs really make good people evil?
Consider that the real cause of all of the crime, illness, destroyed relationships and death is the fact that the drugs are illegal.
The reason drug addicts steal and burglarise is that the drugs cost so much that to buy them they have to obtain the money for them illegally.

The reason for the illness is that the drug addicts are spending all of their money on drugs and not on nutritious food or health care.

The reason for the destroyed relationships is that financial worries, illness and preoccupation with obtaining the drugs compound to make proper relationships virtually impossible.

The reason that people die from overdoses is that because there is so much money in the drugs, dealers can make even more by “cutting” them. They can be cut several times between the original importer and the end user, with a variety of substances. Sometimes the drugs are cut with caustic chemicals. In any case, addicts can’t know how pure the drug is that they are using. When they take their normal dose of a sample that they are unaware is unusually pure, it can kill them.

Why do addicts commit suicide? At least one of the reasons must be that they feel hopelessly trapped in the squalor of a desperate downward spiral from which they can see no possible escape.

Does all this make sense? Well, we know of at least one person who was (is?) a heroin addict. When we heard about her she had a high-flying corporate job at boardroom level. Together, she and her husband were very well off indeed. She had two daughters at an exclusive private school. She was on the school council. And she took her heroin hit every morning before leaving for work. No-one was ever the wiser and it never interfered with her performance at work.

Why didn’t she, too, descend into the hell that other junkies do? The answer is, she could afford the drug. On her income the cost was no big deal at all. She could afford to make sure that the drugs she bought were of consistent quality.

And, anecdotally, she is only one of thousands of similarly effective, perfectly functional heroin addicts in Australia, many of whom are said to be Canberra public servants.

So why are the drugs so expensive? First: because they are illegal; second because there is a strong demand. (To some extent their illegality drives demand; the thrill of the naughtiness, at least in the early experimental stage, can have appeal for rebellious young people.)

The illegality drives up the price. Law enforcement measures make the production and transport of the drugs more and more difficult. Concealment becomes more and more expensive, and the inducements for the producers and couriers need to be big enough for them to be willing to take the risks of death or imprisonment. This pushes up the street price which pushes up the crime statistics. The better the cartels become at hiding their trade, the more the enforcement agencies have to lift their abilities to detect and intercept it. The better the agencies get, the higher the risk and so the higher the price. The better the agencies get, the more limited the supply and so the higher the price.

All of this because “Drugs are bad, M’Kay?” Morally bad. As an article of faith.

Illegal drugs constitute an industry which depends entirely on their illegality. It is in the interests of the drug criminals that drugs are illegal because that is how and why they make such enormous amounts of money.

But it is not a one-sided industry. It is equally in the interests of the enforcement agencies that the drugs be illegal. Their operations have exploded in size in recent decades. Vast empires, both governmental and private, have been built which employ enormous numbers of people all over the world and infuse huge amounts of money into both large and small countries. This money is used to bribe and control tinpot dictatorships and timorous democracies. The war on drugs is used, particularly by the US government, to leverage compliant trade deals throughout the world.

You will not find a drug baron calling for the relaxation of drug laws. In fact they are more likely to be clandestinely buying influence in the corridors of power to tighten the laws. Nor are you going to find their adversaries, the anti-drug czars, expressing an interest in loosening their own powers or reducing the size of their empires.

And of course the amount of money involved leads to breathtaking levels of corruption of both private and government officials, which naturally compromises the quality of governance where it matters most.

For players on both sides it is “a nice little earner”… at the expense of poor people all over the world; stupid poor people in the West, desperate poor people in the third world.

But there is a very nasty side to the illegal drug trade.

In Colombia the cocaine trade funds the FARC guerilla movement’s terror and kidnapping operations. The best way to cripple the FARC would in fact be to decriminalise cocaine worldwide.

In Afghanistan the worldwide illegality of heroin, with its huge market, is what is fuelling and funding the Taliban, resistance to democracy and ultimately world-wide Islamist terrorism. The value of the illicit poppy crops makes it worth the warlords’ resisting the ISAF in Afghanistan. It is in part what leads to the killing of Australian and other nations’ soldiers.

Decriminalising heroin would starve the trade of oxygen.

We are not holding our breath. But any trade depends on supply and demand.

What about demand? This is the truly hard question, the really confronting question.
No trade can survive without demand. The illicit drug trade could never survive if the drugs were merely expensive. People have to want them and want them bad.

So what is it about our society and our culture that so many people so desperately want whatever they get from these drugs?
Don’t know. It probably has something to do with alienation, dehumanisation of our societies and our economic systems.
Perhaps Erich Fromm¹ has a clue:

Could it be that the middle-class life of prosperity, while satisfying our material needs leaves us with a feeling of intense boredom, and that suicide and alcoholism are pathological ways to escape from this boredom. Could it be that…[this is] a drastic illustration for the truth of the statement that “man lives not by bread alone,” and that…modern civilization fails to satisfy profound needs in man?
[ … ]
It is the conflict between two principles of value: that between the world of things, and their amassment, and the world of life and its productivity.
[ … ]
Science, business, politics, have lost all foundations and proportions which make sense humanly. We live in figures and abstractions; since nothing is concrete, nothing is real…Man has been thrown out from any definite place whence he can overlook and manage his life and the life of society. He is driven faster and faster by the forces which originally were created by him. In this wild whirl he thinks, figures, busy with abstractions, more and more remote from concrete life.
[ … ]
… automatons, who follow without force, who are guided without leaders, who make machines which act like men and produce men who act like machines; men, whose reason deteriorates while their intelligence rises, thus creating the dangerous situation of equipping man with the greatest material power without the wisdom to use it.

Whatever, it is not a question that will ever be addressed politically. It is not a question we as a society want to ask, let alone answer, because it would require such adjustment, such effort, such an acceptance of responsibility, such reassessment of who we are that there is no political or social will to address it. Especially when we have our eyes firmly fixed on “the plasma”, or whatever must-keep-up status bauble comes next. And so we will have more of the same and worse.

And we will continue to slump back into the comfort of our self-serving myths.

And we will continue to blame and punish and contemn the poor, stupid, desperate victims, even though in our refusal to abandon our righteousness, in our refusal to see things as they are, and in our refusal to tackle the real questions, we make ourselves the true and self-inflicted victims. 

M’Kay?

¹Erich Fromm, The Sane Society