Arrby on 2013 in review captnmike on 2013 in review Arrby on Oookaaayy! Kayode George on Oookaaayy! Arrby on Unsafe At Any Speed
Click on a word and all posts tagged dealing with that subject will show.Al Jazeera Amy Goodman Barack Obama beans betrayal Bill Clinton Canada capitalism Carol Goar CBC censored CETA Chicago School China Chomsky Chris Hedges Common Dreams corporate-owned media corporatocracy Dalton McGuinty darkness deficit terrorism democracy Democracy Now disaster capitalism Edward Snowden Egyptian Revolution eros fascism gatekeepers Gaza Glenn Greenwald God Google Haiti Honduras imperialism Israel Jason Kenney Julian Assange law & order government Libyan Revolution Linda McQuaig mafia capitalism Maude Barlow media Medicare mining Naomi Klein NDP neoliberal neoliberal capitalism Noam Chomsky NSA Obama Occupy Wall Street Oshawa propaganda R2P riches for the strongest Rob Ford special interests status quo Stephen Harper tax havens terrorism Toronto Toronto Star torture TPP Ukraine UN WikiLeaks William Greider Zelaya
October 2014 S M T W T F S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Canadians May Not Want To Be Americans, Let Alone Chinese, A Problem For Uncle Sam If He Needs Us To See Things Differently
An excerpt from the above linked-to article (by Elizabeth May?) follows:
Ever since September 2012, when news of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Hu Jintao of China witnessing the signing of the Canada-China Investment Agreement in Vladivostok Russia, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has been raising the alarm about the threat to our sovereignty, implicit in any such agreement.
Tabled in the House of Commons on September 26, 2012, quietly and without any briefings or news release, the treaty was never subjected to study in any committee, other than one hour before the trade committee. Ratification involves a vote of Cabinet, not Parliament…
Elisabeth May went on to say, “Once ratified, the Canada-China Investment Agreement will bind Canada, including future governments, for a minimum of 31 years. Unlike NAFTA, with an exit clause of 6 months’ notice, this agreement, also called a FIPA (Foreign Investor Protection Agreement) cannot be exited for the first 15 years. After 15 years, either country can exit on one year’s notice, but any existing investments are further protected for another 15 years. Despite some claims by other politicians that the treaty could be voided by a future government, that is not the case.”
“The only way to exit the treaty would be through negotiations with China in which the government in Beijing agrees. Unilateral withdrawal would trigger a multi-billion dollar claim by the Peoples Republic of China against Canada, with damages open to collection in one hundred countries around the world.”
“Cabinet’s signing of this deal behind closed doors, instead of giving Parliament a say, is not just undemocratic in itself,” added Deputy Leader Bruce Hyer. “It is also a profound attack of Canada’s sovereignty as a nation, and an erosion of the rights of all Canadians to make democratic decisions about our economy, environment, and energy. The Conservatives have now allowed for secret tribunals that will work to re-write our laws in order to protect Chinese interests.”
Green Party Elizabeth May concluded by saying, “This agreement will permit state-owned enterprises (SOEs) of the Peoples Republic of China to bring claims for damages against Canada for decisions taken at municipal, provincial or federal levels if those SOEs believe the decisions will harm their profits.”
My (typo-corrected) online response to the above linked-to article follows:
My view of the matter is that there could be more to this than the clear insanity on display. There may be in this move, a method by which the US can bolster any argument for invading Canada in order to protect it’s own national security. (The US is exceptional and above all laws and can do this sort of thing. Russia can’t.) The invasion I’m envisioning will [be] along the lines of assistance to the Canadian military in dealing with ‘terrorists’ and radicals who are sabotaging tar sands operations and pipelines and fracking operations. If oil is at the core of the US’s national security doctrine, then so is Canada, which is providing a lot of it, free of – it is to be desired – the kind of trouble that attends taking oil from ‘hostile’ people elsewhere.
It probably won’t be Harper who invites the US in (and Will the US depend on such an invitation?), but that doesn’t matter. Harper is setting things up. And China may be getting set up. As for it’s egregious hacking of a Canadian agency, That could just be that state’s bad behavior on display. But we don’t know. How did it happen? Were they tricked into doing it so that one day, the US could point to it as an example of how it’s presence, through Canada as a proxy, is an unacceptable threat, along with the terrorists (First Nations, enviros, landowners, concerned citizens, etc) sabotaging tar sands operations and pipelines, to it’s national security?
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Robert Benzie follows:
In the fight of her political life, embattled NDP Leader Andrea Horwath is banking on her left hook.
A fiery Horwath came out swinging Saturday, touting a new left-wing approach for a party still reeling from a disappointing June election defeat to Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals.
“I have some things to learn,” she admitted to 250 partisans at the party’s provincial council meeting, the last major NDP gathering before her November leadership review.
“There are some important, important lessons that we have to take out of our recent experience,” the New Democrat chief said at the downtown Courtyard Marriott Hotel where she received several standing ovations from the crowd for a 25-minute confessional address.
For one thing, If she didn’t actually address the problem of a lack of progressive issues – not issue – then what were those audience members applauding? Was it her ability to speechify and say the opposite of what she means?
If ‘leftwing’ is good, Benzie wants us to understand, then it is good when it represents… the Right.
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
The present ONDP is hopeless. Hopeless! It’s fundamental principles, to which Horwath wants to return, are those that this party hasn’t abandoned, which progressives should not expect to see abandoned. The corporatocracy is alive and very well and people’s parties are nowhere to be seen and people’s champions are few and far between. And sometimes the odd champion you think you’ve detected only ‘resembles’ one.
You can’t, in any way, shape or form, support a party that is connected to the rightwing federal NDP. How can any normal human being support parties that shrug in the face of the kind of slaughters we see occur in Gaza regularly? For one thing.
Any provincial people’s party that doesn’t address the issue of the interfering, destructive OMB is fake as hell. You don’t have to look further. That would be a good litmus test. But the ONDP’s failure to back a movement that pushes for a minimum wage of $15 leaves me speechless. And where’s the support for small businesses in big cities? Regularly, their streets get torn up for all manner of reasons, including dealing with rail replacement for streetcars (for our coddled – by unions, vote-seeking politicians – Bombardier) and what do we do for them? Not a damn thing. There needs to be a dedicated fund to enable affected small businesses (which are revenue generators) to ride out such events.
Similarly, Steve Paiken (TVO was the source of the top of post pic) calls Horwath a winner. Technically, narrowly, she had some wins. Overall, If Horwath wins in an election only because she sticks to her rightwing path, then that’s a loss for the people. Why does Steve think Andrea is a winner? Is it because she has the ‘right’ political views, whether the people (like those who care about human rights, everywhere, and like workers who don’t make a living wage) think so or not?
From Steve Paiken’s article titled “Why Isn’t Andrea Horwath Fighting Back?'” the following:
Somehow, the conventional wisdom about the June 2014 Ontario election campaign has become, Kathleen Wynne brilliantly overperformed, Tim Hudak dramatically blew it, and Andrea Horwath was no great shakes either.
In fact, because the Toronto media is so dominant in telling the province’s story, a narrative has developed that Horwath was as bad a loser as Hudak, because the NDP lost three seats in the city of Toronto.
That’s all true. But it also ignores the fact that that the NDP did well outside of the Greater Toronto Area, in some cases, astonishingly so…
Given all of that, my question is: why does Horwath continue to be so contrite in public? At a news conference yesterday, she continued her “mea culpa tour” by acknowledging there were problems with the Toronto campaign, and pointing out that those in her office who were responsible are all gone. Horwath has hired a new chief of staff and principal secretary who comes to the job with much praise and a long resume of NDP success in other provinces…
Two years ago, when Horwath was at the height of her popularity, she got only 76 per cent support from NDP delegates. With the upcoming convention in Toronto, and with plenty of ideological anger still in the air among more traditional New Democrats who don’t like Horwath’s more centrist, less socialist, more populist, less labour-dominated approach, it’s hard to see how she’ll top that number, or even get close to it.
Horwath is walking a difficult tight rope. On the one hand, she needs to show her cranky opponents she’s heard their concerns and will take them to heart. On the other hand, the “Steeltown Scrapper” in her no doubt wants to fight back and say, “Lookit you pie-in-the-sky socialists. I got 24 per cent of the total votes cast in the 2014 election. That’s the highest percentage since our victory in 1990. I’m making this party relevant again after a decade in the wilderness. Cut me some slack!”
The 3 posts (parts 1, 2 & 3) following this prologue will look at a critical situation involving Canada and America and America’s increasingly desperate need for oil. I will not assert that the US is going to invade and take over Canada (overtly). That’s only because that’s not something I know for a fact. What I, and any who care to notice, do know for a fact is that were the US to decide to do that, then the following factors would be relevant to that action.
Those factors are real and they include: 1. the American military’s unbelievably huge thirst for oil (which bears on water issues, which will be taken up, with urgency, by many, which will be seen by the US as interference in it’s pursuit of national security objectives), 2. the American military’s need to exist, in it’s present form, for there to be American national security (even stretching ‘American’ to mean the iconic 1% of the United States), and therefore the United States’s need for oil in order for it’s national security policies to have any possibility of being implemented and 3. the ongoing and increasing pushback of the people (from every segment of society), in the United States ‘and’ Canada, to the destruction that the American Empire (and by extension, the American-led corporatocracy) is causing in it’s fight to stay alive, which could force American leaders to take drastic action.
Indeed, They are prepared for the pushback and possess the capacity to respond to it (as Ferguson reveals), which is a capacity that increases steadily. And they certainly have the willingness to act in their, the 1%’s, interests, regardless the consequences.
From Glen Ford’s Black Agenda Report article titled “U.S. Funds “Terror Studies” to Dissect and Neutralize Social Movements,” the following:
“Since the meltdown of 2008, U.S. universities have collaborated with the Pentagon to study dynamics of social movements, worldwide. The goal of “terrorism studies” is “to find possible vectors of resistance, which are to be identified and eradicated, like a disease.” The Minerva Initiative, like NSA spying, sees the entire planet as “enemy territory.””
From Murray Dobbin’s The Tyee article titled “This Is The Security State That Steve Built,” the following:
“For those considering issue triage — picking five or six issues to focus on — in the fight to rid the country of the current government, one area that is critical to the outcome is exposing the Harper government’s construction of the national security state…
“The national security state is a term that has been long connected with corporate globalization and the Washington consensus — the set of policies established in the mid-1970s to replace the old post-war social contract. Its most familiar elements are privatization, deregulation, so called “free trade,” tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and massive cuts to social spending. All of these have been visited upon Canada over the past 20 years.
“But the sixth element of that elite consensus was always there in the background, and was in effect the ruling elites’ anticipation of a popular reaction to the devastating effects of other five: as conditions worsen, as wages and living standards fall, as personal insecurity increases, and as the social safety net frays, the threat of a radical response becomes real.
“The national security state is intended to protect the gains made through free market policies, and at the same time, gradually redefine what government means to the citizenry…”
“President [Gerald] Ford warned oil-producing states that nations have often gone to war to obtain vital natural resources (a pronouncement that was, incidentally, made in Detroit close to the Canadian border); [Henry] Kissinger stated that force could not be ruled out if the industrial states were being strangled; and the CIA revealed past plans to assassinate heads of state. All these things suggest that irresponsibility within the American system of govern, or a ruthless president, might cause the engulfment of Canada in some future crisis.” – Richard A. Preston, “The Defense Of The Undefended Border – Planning For War In North American 1867-1939″ (published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1977)
“…[G.W.] Bush reinforced the Cheney energy plan with his own doctrine on national security in September 2002. Issued one year after the events of 9/11, the Bush Doctrine built on the national security proclamations of previous US administrations and went further to declare the US had a right to (a) make use of pre-emptive strikes against potential aggressors; (b) act unilaterally, if necessary, to protect its interests; and (c) ensure its trade policies and practices serve US national security interests. In effect, the Bush Doctrine provided the justification for the US invasion of Iraq, in 2003. Although Bush’s own national security doctrine was ostensibly crafted to fight the war on terror after 9/11, it basically serves US interests of enhancing energy security by protecting the US’s oil supply chains in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere around the world. Under the Bush Doctrine, energy policy, as a matter of national security, also became more deeply interwoven with US trade and foreign policies…
“As we saw… the Bush-Cheney administration was building on the foundations laid by previous US governments when it declared energy, and oil in particular, to be a top issue of national security. Under this doctrine of national security, the US can use its military might to secure control over energy supplies around the world, including Canada if necessary. In times of peak oil, when worldwide demand for oil is increasing while supplies of conventional oil are diminishing, pubic anxieties about energy security are bound to intensify. In turn, these anxieties can also be exploited by a politics of fear to make people believe that military action is necessary to ensure that energy security.” – Tony Clarke, pages 128 & 258 of “Tar Sands Showdown – Canada And The New Politics Of Oil In An Age Of Climate Change”
The wild beast of corporatocracy seeks to exist at the expense of the 99%, in the short term, and at the expense of everyone in the long term. The corporatocracy, and it’s invisible ruler, seek to destroy all life on earth. What is Satan’s goal? He’s lost his life and he’s angry, as Revelation chapter 12 clearly states. God is using Satan to settle an issue, which Satan can do nothing about but which his actions forced into being. Satan’s wild beasts are animated by his agents and they have their own pathologies and motivations. But Satan just wants to hurt God, hopefully, by forcing him – through the torture and murder (both physical and spiritual) of kidnapped mankind – to change his mind about things. But Jehovah is perfect and always has been. And the universe, which he created, depends on him. And it depends on him to remain ‘who’ he is. He ‘could’ change his mind about things, if he wished. But then, in a sense, there’d be no God. If the meaning of ‘God’ includes perfection, then God’s changing of his mind automatically eliminates that perfection. Then what?
“For I am Jehovah. I do not change.” – Malachi 3:6a (The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures, revised version, 2013) The previous version said: “For I am Jehovah. I have not changed.” Personally, I like the previous version of this verse better, but I am not a Bible scholar. Therefore, I will defer to the Watchtower Society on this. What I don’t defer to however, is their punctuation. I will adjust it as I see fit whenever I quote from their Bible. Which doesn’t mean that I think that their Bible is poor. I think it’s the best translation out there or I wouldn’t use it. I’m also very familiar with it. Incidentally, I am not a Jehovah’s Witness. A final point: “have not changed” to “do not change” is not a small change. )
Nations all over the globe have discovered the American-led corporatocracy, the hard way, unlike Canada. So far. But the present era of peak oil and water that we are in changes everything. The legal violence, via lawfare and free trade deals and dictats from leaders that out and out give carte blanche to banksters or polluters and the violence done to isolated communities by mining companies and oil and gas companies, especially indigenous communities, may very well give way to something more general and overt as the abused people vigorously protest the continuing predations of too free corporations. Canada isn’t safe.
But human civilization, since Adam and Eve, hasn’t been safe. It’s been kidnapped. The destruction – corruption – of our souls has been Satan’s weapon in his fight with the Creator. The destruction of human ‘civilization’ necessarily means the destruction of the liveable earth, or “terracide,” in the words of Tom Engelhardt. But the liveable earth, and mankind on it and in dominion over it, is God’s project. Which is why that destruction, despite the best efforts of soulless, godless leaders – who have foolishly sought to replace God by taking his place – and their entire horde, will fail. (Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39; Isaiah 55:9-11)
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways. And my thoughts than your thoughts. For just as the rain and the snow pour down from heaven and do not return there until they saturate the earth, making it produce and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight. And it will have sure success in what I send it to do. – Jehovah’s words, through the pen of the Bible writer Isaiah
Lives will be lost in this pushback. No one need doubt it. No one should forget Rachel Corrie and Gaza, which no one could ignore. Some choose to not acknowledge the politicide and genocide happening over the course of many years in occupied Palestine, peaking in the years of operation Cast Lead (2008 – 2009) and operation Pillar of Defense (2012) and operation Protective Edge (July 8, 2014 – August 26, 2014), but that moral and spiritual failure to acknowledge widespread human rights abuses and big baskets of war crimes doesn’t equal not noticing.
“…we are quietly observing a rare event in history, what the late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling called “politicide,” the murder of a nation – at hour hands.” – Noam Chomsky, from the chapter titled “Exterminate All The Brutes: Gaza 2009″ from “Gaza in Crisis – Reflections On Israel’s War Against The Palestinians” by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé
Which isn’t to say that some Western societies (certainly America and Canada) don’t have in place very serviceable propaganda systems and don’t have in place societal features that can make people dumb as hell. Floyd Rudmin, author of “Bordering On Aggression,” reminds readers of something that Noam Chomsky said about the American propaganda system probably drumming up something like 90% support for invading Canada should the American government (consisting of political and corporate components) decide to do that! Some will indeed not notice what’s going on in the world. We all experience it; How many of our friends, family and workmates are happily oblivious to the destruction of Canada (and the Amazon and forests and rivers everywhere where capitalists want to graze cattle for hamburgers – adding to the problem of global warming – dig for minerals, dam up the precious waters, etc.), the destruction of the Palestinians, the destruction of societies where American-backed coups remove relatively democratic regimes and replace them with client regimes presided over by individual or composite ‘strong man’ leaders? In fact, Only 1% (not literally; I wouldn’t know numbers) carries the entire 99%. That’s why man alone can’t win against this darkness.
The 1% fighting for all of humanity is absolutely outgunned. Just because you’re a victim of unrighteousness, that doesn’t make you righteous. That doesn’t mean that you’ll care. That doesn’t mean that you’ll pay enough attention to what’s being done to you and your world that you’ll then see that clearly and want to expose the exploiters and destroyers and support their victims. You might squawk when you lose your job or get cancer living near the tar sands or get sick from breathing depleted uranium in Iraq or lose your clean drinking water because of fracking, but squawking isn’t fightback. It’s just noise. (Squawking that’s informed and intelligible is more than just noise.) Elites are not troubled by the wailing of their victims. In fact, they get a thrill from hearing it, as long as they are far enough away from the source that they can ignore it when they wish to.
The American military cannot be altered in order to forestall the above nightmare scenario. The oil-fed form that it now has will be the form it has on the day it is destroyed (by God, or “not by hand,” if you’re wondering). If there’s any nation that is, more than others, greatly in danger from other armed and dangerous countries, it’s the one that has attacked, in so many ways, so many others. It is the one that has been instrumental in maintaining the vicious, monstrous character of the system of things that has developed over the course of millennia on this bleeding planet. It is utterly perverted. It claims to enlightened and a champion of democracy and peace (or inoffensive, like a lamb) but, as the Christian Bible notes, it speaks like a dragon (Revelation 13:11). It goes around the world spreading terror and destroying and enabling other destroyers and claims to be democratic. It preaches democracy, a deed so sickening, considering it’s actual record, it prompted Noam Chomsky to write “Deterring Democracy,” about the United States and it’s non stop deterrence of democracy.
The United States has succeeded in having it’s US-centered, global economic system entrenched, thereby helping to fashion the hell on earth that we in the modern era have all come to chafe under one way or another. The American military, and the world along with it, is caught in a rat’s wheel and, drugged up on oil, it will, left to it’s own devices, run until it dies. It – it’s military – can’t safely stand down while it quits it’s addiction to oil, for which reason the task of conflating the superior, evolved, enlightened American way of life with the American military is essential (for coopting the people) and taken up by soulless writers like Thomas Friedman.
Indeed, The war on the people is direct and physical and nasty where and when it must be, but it is also a war on minds and hearts where and when it must be. In fact, the psywar rages daily, everywhere and all the time. But that, in all Western lands, isn’t the whole fight. The propaganda system works in tandem with brutal work culture and consumerism to keep the people weak but not to weak to slave for the 1%. John Edgerton, the first president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and others in his class, were believers in “the gospel of consumerism” and capitalism and rightwing ideals including a notion of choice, which we’re all familiar with, that seen choice as existing when it was the choice to support power (industrialists and the political class that allied with them) but not existing when it was any other choice, euphemistically referred to as “radicalism.”
Now, You have to give me some time to deliver (additional “Crimson Nightmare” posts) here. I have been dealing with a lot and it may not come soon.
*edit – August 28, 2014 – WP has come around to undoing – so far as I can tell – the big ‘improvement’ it made to it’s editor. I’m talking about what everyone is calling ‘the internal scrollbar’. There’s a window with the editor page, where the post content is displayed. It had it’s own scrollbar, in addition to the page’s scrollbar, which meant that needed features, buttons, on the right, were always handy. The content field could be scrolled independently of the rest of the page and the controls to the right, a system that I would call normal and instinctive. Then they removed that internal scrollbar, leaving only the page’s scrollbar, and forcing the user to scroll the entire page, with all of it’s controls, to get to the bottom of a growing post. Quickly, Your control buttons disappear, above. I will attach a few screen shots of the WP forum discussion where a spokesperson for WP announced the reversal of the ‘improvement’.
I am thrilled to see Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and other progressive figures together under one roof socking to it power. First Look Media is that roof. I’m not thrilled that for that to happen, it took a billionaire with questionable loyalties to become the funder. How’s that old saying go?: ‘Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer’.
From “Revealed: Visitor logs show full extent of Pierre and Pamela Omidyar’s cozy White House ties,” by Paul Carr, the following:
Speaking to the Daily Beast, documentary maker Jeremy Scahill mentioned his boss explicitly when comparing the cozy relationship between other news organizations and the White House. First Look, he insisted, would be different…
I think that the White House, whether it is under Republican or Democrat, they pretty much now [sic] who they are dealing with. There are outlets like The Daily Beast, or The Huffington Post that have risen up in the past decade, but they are very quickly just becoming part of the broader mainstream media, and with people that have spent their careers working for magazines or newspapers or what have you, and the White House believes they all speak the language on these things. With us, because we want to be adversarial, they won’t know what bat phone to call. They know who to call at The Times, they know who to call at The Post. With us, who are they going to call? Pierre? Glenn?”
Scahill’s question is a good one — and it’s also very easy to answer: If the White House has a problem with First Look, it’s a pretty safe bet they’ll pick up the phone and call Pierre Omidyar.
After all, according to records made available under Obama’s 2009 transparency commitment, Omidyar has visited the Obama White House at least half a dozen times since 2009. During the same period, his wife, Pamela Omidyar, who heads Omidyar Network, has visited 1600 Pennsylvania Ave at least four times, while Omidyar Network’s managing partner, Matthew Bannick, has visited a further three. In all, senior Omidyar Network officials made at least 13 visits to the White House between 2009-2013. (In fact the logs indicate that, on several occasions, Omidyar visited the White House more than once in the same day. To avoid unfairly inflating the numbers, I’ve removed same-day duplicates from all the totals cited in this article.)
To put the numbers in perspective, Omidyar’s six visits compare to four visits during the same period by NBCUniversal chief Stephen Burke, two by Fox News boss Roger Ailes, two by MSNBC’s Phil Griffin, one by New York Times owner Arthur O Sulzberger, and one each by Dow Jones’ Robert Thompson, Gannett/USA Today’s Gracia Martore and Omidyar’s fellow tech billionaire turned media owner, Jeff Bezos.
Why do we not see much about this in major media? Imagine the following headline in either the New York Times or The Toronto Star: “Pierre Omidyar’s new ‘speak truth to power’ org, with progressive stars like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald on board, may be undermined by Omidyar’s cozy White House connection” People would be going “Huh? What’s that about? Progressives have been tricked?” If they didn’t have the concept of ‘progressive’ even in their minds before, that would have planted it there, along with the idea that ‘progressives’ are good and ‘good progressives stand up to the bad White House’. Corporate-owned media isn’t in the business of attacking it’s class. It’s not in the business of attacking the system it’s a part of, in a positive sense.
I was trying to comment on one of the blog posts on The Intercept (part of the First Look organization), but don’t remember which one exactly, when I found myself being jettisoned to the top of the post after posting. At first, I was disoriented. It took me a minute to figure out what had happened. Who has time for this crap? It never fails to amaze me how poorly websites are designed. After all these years! And these are websites by people and organizations that have the money to pay for their construction. My free WordPress.com website is more useful and organized than many of them, although I have to qualify that since WP has recently done a nasty ‘improvement’, a la Microsoft (windows 8), that has made it less efficient to desktop users, who I didn’t think, collectively, were that ‘small’ in the grand scheme of things.
Then again, We are living under corporatocracy. Search as you may for the democracy in it, you won’t find it. If hardware makers make more money making smaller devices (less material, same or greater prices to consumers), and if they don’t give a crap about the zillions of desktop users out there who get left behind as software gets tweaked for the newer, smaller devices, So what? Why can’t there be more than one kind of market, in computers, for capitalists? I can only speculate that the owners just couldn’t be bothered. They are only prepared to work so hard at scamming us, as they evade taxes, and the democratic factor isn’t a factor. (And from the 1%’s standpoint, Anything that introduces into society manageable chaos is a plus. Keep the people weak – which we are when we can’t communicate effectively – and that will keep the corporatocracy strong.) And if orgs like WP don’t care about that, What can people like myself do about it? Yes, I use WP for free, but I’d be happy to cough up something for the old WP.com which was more amenable to my laptops. (I’d be happy to cough up for a lot that I don’t cough up for, but I don’t earn a living wage. Actually, As of yesterday, I don’t earn any wage. The site transfer that I asked for from my company, G4S, and which was granted, hasn’t come through, even though they’ve got my replacement doing my old job and I’m left without work and nervously twiddling my thumbs. They aren’t communicating with me! Corporations can do what they like. If they don’t like you, they can abuse you – more than they already do.) WP spokespersons don’t discuss it. They just bullcrap us about their new improvements that some (You’ll see them in the WP forums. Who are they?) say we’ll get used to.
Note the number of comments for the WP ‘improvement':
A screenshot of my email to Lynn Oberlander at First Look and her reply follows, to be followed by a clearer repeat of the content of those emails:
Lynn Oberlander to me:
Dear Arrbyy: Thank you for your email. You raise a good point about having a contact for website issues. I am going to forward your email to the relevant party and also raise the question of a webmaster.
My email to Lynn (which was a contact I just randomly selected from the few provided):
Hello. I am entirely supportive of all that The Intercept is doing. (I’m not sure about it’s owner however.)
Why, why, why doesn’t TI have a contact for webmasters in order to receive feedback on website issues? That’s why I’m bothering ‘you’. Who the hell am I supposed to contact out of that short list that you (whoever ‘you’ refers to) provides? I just want to note that, while I truly like the ‘function over form’ approach taken here, the functionality should look at all users of the site, creators and visitors. I replied to another reader’s comment and was unceremoniously jettisoned to the top of the page. WHO HAS TIME for that?!!!
I sent my email to Lynn on August 4, 2014. I just popped into First Look today, August 15, to see whether anything’s changed in their contact list. Everyone’s busy. I know that. Still…
and a little further down the page…
This looks like the original site: Abby Martin at Disclose TV
The Nazis, beloved by Western nations, especially their ruling classes, until Hitler went out of control (like Saddam Hussein and other former ‘strong man’ leaders) and attacked certain wrong parties, sent millions of Jews, and many others (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) to the gas chambers. But it’s important to remember that there was that flip in the marketing. (Marketing is about ‘selling’, not ‘the truth’.) It happens all the time. One day you’re an ally, a great friend and a good guy to uncle Sam, and the next day you’re evil incarnate, which happens when you make the mistake of disobeying the Godfather, the US ruling class (which, remember, has political and corporate components). So where in fact do Western nations stand on Nazism? They stand in support of it, since Nazism, at it’s core, is about corporate rule and capitalist expansion. Noam Chomsky talks about it in his book, “Deterring Democracy,” and Naomi Klein’s piece for Rolling Stone magazine, titled “China’s All-Seeing Eye,” illustrates Western priorities and principles nicely. (When she wrote her prescient article, we had not yet been regaled with the information made available by Edward Snowden and others.) Western corporations helped the evil communist China regime to build it’s security/surveillance network, Golden Shield, in preparation for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. As Klein points out, the Western capitalists were eager to do the same in the US where citizens who actually believe in democracy pose a thorny problem for corporatist leaders who feel that the best form of capitalism is the one they are observing in China, where the state sits, unapologetically, on it’s people and they – the citizens who the state hasn’t convinced that repression ‘is’ democracy – know enough not to get out of line and clamor for democracy.
“China today, epitomized by Shenzhen’s transition from mud to megacity in 30 years, represents a new way to organize society. Sometimes called “market Stalinism,” it is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarian communism — central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance — harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism…
“The security cameras are just one part of a much broader high-tech surveillance and censorship program known in China as “Golden Shield.” The end goal is to use the latest people-tracking technology — thoughtfully supplied by American giants like IBM, Honeywell and General Electric — to create an airtight consumer cocoon: a place where Visa cards, Adidas sneakers, China Mobile cellphones, McDonald’s Happy Meals, Tsingtao beer and UPS delivery (to name just a few of the official sponsors of the Beijing Olympics) can be enjoyed under the unblinking eye of the state, without the threat of democracy breaking out. With political unrest on the rise across China, the government hopes to use the surveillance shield to identify and counteract dissent before it explodes into a mass movement like the one that grabbed the world’s attention at Tiananmen Square.” – Naomi Klein
“A 1937 State Department report concluded that “Fascism is becoming the soul of Italy,” having “brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy,” the reporter continued. Furthermore, like Germany under Hitler, Italy was standing in the way of Russian influence in Spain during the Civil War. Washington had adopted a form of “neutrality” that amounted to a tilt toward Spanish Fascism against the liberal democratic republic, while joining in the uniform hostility of the West and Stalin to the popular libertarian revolution.
“In the major academic study of the topic, David Schmitz points out that the model developed for Italy, with “moderate” Fascists holding the middle ground between the dreaded left- and right-wing extremists, was applied to Nazism as well. Here, Hitler was chosen as the representative of the moderates who promised “social order, anti-Bolshevik laws, and protection for foreign capital,” Schmitz observes. The American chargé d’affaires in Berlin wrote to Washington in 1933 that the hope for Germany lay in “the more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler himself… which appeal[s] to all civilized and reasonable people,” and seems to have “the upper hand” over the violent fringe. In 1937, the State Department saw fascism as compatible with US economic interests. A report of the European Division explained its rise as the natural reaction of “the rich and middle classes, in self-defense” when the “dissatisfied masses, with the example of the Russian revolution before them, swing to the left.” Fascism therefore “must succeed or the masses, this time reinforced by the disillusioned middle classes, will again turn to the left.” Not until European Fascism attacked US interests directly did it become an avowed enemy. The reaction to Japanese Fascism was much the same.
“Though the Axis powers became enemies during World War II, the general framework of thinking never really changed.”
As for defeated Germany in World War II…
“The United States was determined to prevent expropriation of Nazi industrialists and firmly opposed to allowing worker-based organizations to exercise managerial authority. Such developments would pose a serious threat of democracy in one sense of the term, while violating it in the approved sense. The US authorities therefore turned to sympathetic right-wing socialists, as in Japan, while using such means as control of CARE packages, food and other supplies to overcome the opposition of rank-and-file workers. It was finally necessary to “wall-off” the Western zone by partition, to veto the major union constitutions, forcefully to terminate social experiments, vetoing state [Laender] legislation, co-determination efforts, and so on. Major Nazi war criminals were recruited for US intelligence and anti-resistance activities, Klaus Barbie being perhaps the best known. A still worse Nazi gangster, Franz Six, was pressed into service after his sentence as a war criminal was commuted by US High Commissioner John J. McCloy. He was put to work for Reinhard Gehlen, with special responsibility for developing a “secret army” under US auspices, along with former Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht specialists, to assist military forces established by Hitler in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in operations that continued into the 1950s. Gehlen himself had headed Nazi military intelligence on the Eastern front, and was reinstated as head of the espionage and counterespionage of the new West German state, under close CIA supervision.
“Meanwhile, as in Japan, the burden of reconstruction was placed upon German workers, in part by fiscal measures that wiped out the savings of the poor and union treasuries. “So thoroughgoing was the U.S. assault on German labor that even the AFL [American Federation of Labor] complained,” [Carolyn] Eisenberg comments, though the AFL had helped to lay the basis for these consequences by its anti-union activities. Union activists were purged and strikes were blocked by force. By 1949, the State Department expressed its pleasure that “industrial peace had been attained,” with a now docile and tractable labor force and an end to the vision of a unified popular movement that might challenge the authority of owners and managers. As Tom Bower describes the outcome in study of the rehabilitation of Nazi war criminals, “Four years after the war, those responsible for the day-to-day management of post-war Germany were remarkably similar to the management during the days of Hitler,” including bankers and industrialists convicted of war crimes who were released and restored to their former roles, reversing their collaboration with US corporations.” – pages 42, 341 & 342 of “Deterring Democracy” by Noam Chomsky
For a long time afterward, the victorious allies in WWII would refer to the evil of Nazism and make statements like “Never again.” But that sort of thing is easy. The meaning, mainly, that people are to, or were to, take away from that position, and statements like “Never again,” is that powerful evildoers will never again be allowed to plunge the world into war. The civilized nations would be on guard against that and not allow it. Except that there were too many uncivilized nations then, including the victors, and there are even fewer now. And the nasty ones are nastier. What’s more, the political world has changed. Most nation states are part of a network, the corporatocracy, presided over by it’s most powerful and brutal member, the United States, which has (re) launched a war on terror, a ‘global’ war on terror. But the terrorists, it turns out, are a very varied lot and include most of the planet’s law-abiding (mostly), regular people. And I’m not saying that they’re all righteous. Still…
What the corporatocracy really feels must be “never again,” was made clear when the Trilateral Commission, unimpressed with citizens taking their freedom for granted and believing in democracy, had, from the 1%’s standpoint, too damn much to say about matters affecting them, which the Commission’s members referred to as a “crisis of democracy.” They decided to use their considerable clout to sideline citizens and have largely been successful. We can talk, but without democratic, political representation and a willingness to completely rebel against the theft of democracy and the political process, we are powerless as the exploiters go, literally, crazy.
The US has invaded other countries frequently. But the American Empire is different than previous empires. Mostly, It’s imperial conquests are done via economic hit men, the CIA, the World Bank, the IMF and assorted organizations (USAID, IRI, NDI, NED – Third World Traveler articles looking at those orgs: http://bit.ly/X0Vx39) that destabilize target nations. It bankrolls coups all over. They only have a chance of failing when a country’s population (or enough of it) enjoys solidarity with it’s elected leader. Efforts at destablization, in other words, ‘can’ fail, not in the sense that no trouble is caused by the US, but because democratic forces are strong enough to rebuff the coup plotters, as we saw in Venezuela. So, When Western leaders and others mouth “Never again,” the only appropriate response is “What is to be never again?” Democracy? The idea that Nazis are evil?
Evil, which powerful states and their propaganda organs, including major media, have their own definitions for, was once identified with Hitler’s Germany. What would you expect? But dogs eat dogs. The war effort of the allies was portrayed by them in the most righteous, moral terms, as was the war effort of the axis powers.
“One should bear in mind that the US government, like any actor in world affairs, will always be publicly advocating diplomacy, not force. That was the US stance while seeking to bar negotiations and political settlement in Vietnam and Central America, and has always been the public posture with regard to the Arab-Israel conflict, even as the US has been leading the rejectionist camp. Whatever the US position may be, the media depict it as a yearning for diplomacy and peaceful means. Thus we read of “the American effort to keep attention focused on diplomacy and sanctions, not the drums of war” – when in fact the effort is to block the diplomatic track, reject negotiations, and keep to force and coercion – under an international cover if possible, otherwise alone. As in other cases, it is a point of logic, immune to fact, that Washington is seeking to resolve the problem peacefully, without the use of force.” – Noam Chomsky, page 205 of “Deterring Democracy”
“Stephen Harper describes World War I as a noble conflict. It was not…
“Citing wartime prime minister Robert Borden, Harper said Canadians went to battle in 1914 “for the cause of honour, to maintain solemn pledges, to uphold the principle of liberty.
“”I say nothing has changed,” Harper went on, an apparent reference to his government’s rock-solid support of Israel and equally rock-solid opposition to Russia. “Canada is still loyal to our friends, unyielding to our enemies.”
“Let’s hope some things have changed.” – Thomas Walkom (“Harper fails to see the Great War as a mistake” Toronto Star, August 6, 2014
If powerful leaders capable of committing genocide and plunging the world into war are what was to never again be, then why did the world continue to acquire such leaders and genocides? True, We didn’t get another world war since WWII, but, one, we have been relatively lucky and, two, the world is no longer the simple world of individual nation states that it was. There are nation states, but their sovereignty is limited. (Mostly, Corporatist leaders are okay with that – namely those who aren’t on uncle Sam’s ‘to be erased’ list – and ruling classes, today, knowing only the capitalist order created by America, look to the dominant world power to maintain their capitalist system, which the 1% benefits from. What it means for the people is trouble in the form of austerity and division and neighbors turning on neighbors. But corporatist leaders are okay with that too.) Leaders today know that the world has changed and they are aware of who runs it, their place in the pecking order and the limits of their ability to plot an independent course that does not involve feeding their citizens to the wild beast’s offspring, the World Bank and the IMF, which limits they ignore at their own peril. Most leaders, then, aren’t. And they do feed their citizens to the corporatocracy’s vicious offspring. Chomsky notes that John Kennedy and his admin presided over a paradigm shift in which the US government no longer regarded, at least in private, foreign armies (including the all powerful, all evil nutmeg capital of the world, Grenada) as being the enemy, which isn’t to say that powerful states stop worrying about each other. (Anyway, You can have more than one enemy at any given time.)
Now the main enemy was “internal.” The enemy, as you would expect looking at things from neoliberal capitalists’ standpoint, is now the people who stand in the way of their own exploitation as free trade agreements, transferring political power (democracy) from them to unaccountable corporations, are lobbed at them. Such adjustments (redesigning governments to make them less responsive to the people and social justice movements and more responsive to the needs of transnationals and investors) are vital to the kind of capitalism that leaders have chosen to embrace, namely a capitalism based on exploitation and inequality, accomplished partly by strangling the voice of the people, which they once had, to a degree, in the form of political representation. In other words, Governments have been captured in the class war and the people are seriously hobbled as a result. Undemocratic neoliberal capitalism is threatened by democracy and it’s agents act accordingly.
“Tax havens are merely a flagrant example of a much larger and exceedingly complicated political agenda – the politics of escape. Transnational commerce, either to defend against price competition or to minimize the potential returns of globalization, has aggressively campaigned over three or four decades to free itself from various social controls imposed by home governments. These political contests, commonly described as deregulation, continue, and the issues generate great controversy across virtually every sector of public policy, from environmental protection to wage-and-hour laws, from food-safety regulation to interest-rate controls and banking codes.” – page 33 of “One World, Ready Or Not – The Manic Logic Of Global Capitalism”
Welcome to neoliberal capitalism and the politics of escape. The powerful only care about laws to the extent that they can use them to control people. Free trade agreements are not about trade, but about a transfer of political power that frees corporations to do what they want. Capitalist expansion includes a geographic dimension. Resources don’t come from off-planet. And getting them means having to deal with the people who live where they are. We could just peacefully talk about that, but why respect people’s rights when considering taking their resources if you can just take them by force, including via legal means such as free trade agreements, and in the case of First Nations, via rigged treaty negotiations? In other words, corporations, aided and abetted by the political class which was gradually corrupted as members got bought off and others simply sold their souls, have successfully (since the efforts of the Trilateral Commission) escaped from rules and responsibility. They walk on the wide and spacious road to destruction. There are no rules (including in the sense that their governments can make, break or alter them as they wish, regardless the consequences to the wider society), which is how that road is wide and spacious. For the powerless majority, especially those who have the ‘wrong’ political views (such as a belief in democracy), there are lots of rules. This, though, is where it gets tricky.
“But to be able to rely on its alliances and to have any influence on them, Canada has to give something back to them. As military and political leaders argue, Canada has to be a contributor and not just a sponge on the security resources of others. Moreover, what if Canadian interests somewhere are threatened independently of those of other capitalist powers?…
“Indeed, you cannot understand Canadian security policy without considering First Nations: Canada’s military and paramilitary forces were in fact first forged in wars against indigenous people. Just as Canadian capitalist expansion begins at home, so does Canadian security policy… And military power is not the only way in which security is being pursued by Canadian capital and the state… local police forces, paramilitaries and mercenaries (now called private military companies) are increasingly being used to defend Canadian interests…
“It is not an overstatement to suggest that over its relatively short history the Canadian state has viewed indigenous struggles as one of the most pressing security challenges it faces, if not the most pressing. Indigenous people’s continued existence within Canada as nations is a reminder of the fragility of the Canadian state project; every demand for or defence of land, every assertion of political sovereignty, is a threat to that project and a sharp reminder of its irreconcilability with First Nations’ aspirations for liberation from colonialism.
“Military and paramilitary assaults against indigenous nations have been a formative part of Canada’s development. The military and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (in a previous incarnation the Northwest Mounted Police [NWMP]) cut their teeth fighting First Nations for their land, resources and political and economic sovereignty…
“As the pressures of capitalist expansion have picked up in the neoliberal era, so too has the recourse to force in an effort to subdue indigenous resistance.” – pages 278 & 279 of “Imperialist Canada” by Todd Gordon
Being a victim doesn’t automatically make you righteous. And that’s kind of a secret weapon of the corporatocracy. Only a very few among the 99% actually walk a narrow road – namely one having rules that can’t be broken solely for personal gain – that leads to life. In other words, The corporatocracy doesn’t meet with the fullest opposition that it merits, due to the fact that victims are often compromised and can’t muster the appropriate response to corporatocracy-inspired destruction. However, Pushed too far, victims will overcome their reticence and they will want to push back. Not having water to drink or wash dishes with or bathe in for example, can make people anti-corporatocracy, no matter how indoctrinated they are to view environmentalists as commies and terrorists and capitalists as the good guys.
What is the current attack on Gaza about? It’s racist, for sure. Conscientious Israeli soldiers cited that as one reason they refused to join in the slaughter of Gazans. Israelis, the ruling class and the general public, have embraced darkness. That darkness includes racism. The nature of darkness is that, if those who embrace it start off clever, breaking agreements for gain but taking steps to make it look like they are not, they sure don’t finish clever. How can you?
From the article titled “Outrage” by Noam Chomsky:
“Forty years ago Israel made the fateful decision to choose expansion over security, rejecting a full peace treaty offered by Egypt in return for evacuation from the occupied Egyptian Sinai, where Israel was initiating extensive settlement and development projects. It has adhered to that policy ever since, making essentially the same judgment as South Africa did in 1958.
“In the case of Israel, if the US decided to join the world, the impact would be far greater. Relations of power allow nothing else, as has been demonstrated over and over when Washington has demanded that Israel abandon cherished goals. Furthermore, Israel by now has little recourse, after having adopted policies that turned it from a country that was greatly admired to one that is feared and despised, a course it is pursuing with blind determination today in its resolute march towards moral deterioration and possible ultimate destruction.
“Could US policy change? It’s not impossible. Public opinion has shifted considerably in recent years, particularly among the young, and it cannot be completely ignored. For some years there has been a good basis for public demands that Washington observe its own laws and cut off military aid to Israel. US law requires that “no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Israel most certainly is guilty of this consistent pattern, and has been for many years. That is why Amnesty International, in the course of Israel’s murderous Cast Lead operation in Gaza, called for an arms embargo against Israel (and Hamas). Senator Patrick Leahy, author of this provision of the law, has brought up its potential applicability to Israel in specific cases, and with a well-conducted educational, organizational, and activist effort such initiatives could be pursued successively. That could have a very significant impact in itself, while also providing a springboard for further actions not only to punish Israel for its criminal behavior, but also to compel Washington to become part of “the international community” and to observe international law and decent moral principles.
“Nothing could be more significant for the tragic Palestinian victims of many years of violence and repression.
(*Gazonto, by John Greyson, was added today, August 27, 2014)
Darkness includes lying and deceit. Embracing those practices doesn’t make you clever. It cripples you and you disconnect from reality. If I see a bus coming down the street which I’m walking across and tell myself that there is no bus there, Guess what the outcome will be? Neoliberal capitalists are like that, but if they have their way, they will be putting all of us in front of a speeding bus with them. Just look at the biggest capital intensive industrial project on the planet underway right now in Alberta Canada. They are absolutely nuts! The government of Canada had not even bothered to estimate the water use and availability to the impossibly thirsty tar sands extraction projects operating (in which water use is 3x greater than water use in conventional oil extraction projects), let alone those projects planned for, while cities in the US are drying up and citizens in one city are being treated to water shut offs by an appointed (!) emergency city manager who is overseeing the imposition of austerity on Detroit citizens so that, as actor Mark Ruffalo notes, that manager and his 0.1% class can enjoy prosperity. In another American city, Toledo Ohio, people couldn’t use their water for anything for a time due to toxins caused by “dangerous levels of microcystin, a toxin created by algae blooms that likely stem farm fertilizers used in the region.” Well, That’s okay, because only pinko socialists do organic farming.
Folks without jobs and incomes and folks whose work isn’t properly paid for – austerity and joblessness stemming, partly, from de-industrialization stemming from traitorous, disloyal CEOs who always want cheaper labor – are victimized for being victims when the same sick governments tell them to pay their water bills or else lose their water. Water! This is in a country whose representatives tell the rest of the world that they should be democratic, like the United States! This is from a state, joined by other Western states, that takes the view that some third world people hate them because they are jealous of their fantastic way of life!
From Bill Moyer’s interview of John R. MacArthur, author of “The Selling Of Free Trade – NAFTA, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy,” the following:
BILL MOYERS: Just a week ago the Bush administration and the new Democratic leaders in Congress announced they had made a big breakthrough: a new bi-partisan trade agreement. Billed as an “important first step” -
SPEAKER PELOSI: It is progress – it is historic – we have to know make it work for America’s working families…
BILL MOYERS: The President gets the ‘free trade’ he wants for wall street, Democrats get the ‘fair trade’ they want for main street…namely, some protection for workers whose jobs are being shipped overseas…and protection for the environment that is often trampled by the trade winds of capitalism.
Sounds like a win-win, right?…
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, the main thing to know is that this is an initiative, as far as I can tell from my own reporting, from the leadership of the House, which is– Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. And this is like the– NAFTA campaign of the ’90s, an attempt by the Democratic leadership– in those days it was the Clintons — to raise money from Wall Street. They’re trying to compete head to head with the Republicans in their own pool.
BILL MOYERS: Why now? What’s the advantage of acting on this at this very moment? What do you see as the strategy?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: It’s simply because we’ve got a big election coming up.
BILL MOYERS: Well, not for–
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: They’re gearing up for 2008. And Rangel has got to beat the Bushes for money. He’s gotta shake down the bankers and the private equity people. And he’s gotta have something to show to them.
BILL MOYERS: But there has been a deadlock on trade for some years now. There has been great disaffection with NAFTA, what’s happened in Mexico, the number of jobs lost in this country. And the Republicans haven’t wanted to give on these issues of labor standards and environmental standards. Could this possibly be a breakthrough?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: No, because it’s just like the NAFTA side agreements in the ’90s. They guaranteed all sorts of things in the side agreements: labor rights, environmental protection in Mexico. And none of it got done. Virtually none of it got done. Now, in these agreements, they’re saying that these countries are suddenly going to start respecting labor rights. That countries like Peru, which can only survive by selling us their cheap labor. In other words, that’s all they’ve got– are going to raise their labor standards that would kill the very justification for set– for setting up a factory in Peru. It’s the same thing in Mexico. It’s the same thing in China.
BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that so many people embrace this so heartily so quickly?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, the people who embraced it: the media, the pundits, the elites– the heads of– banks and of investment banks, and the leadership of the two parties. That’s not the people. The people are sold this– idea of free trade over and over again, as though it were good for them. I mean, what do we have to cite? The statistics speak for themselves. More than half a million jobs officially lost because of NAFTA. The other thing to remember, of course, is that it’s not just the brokerages and the financial business. It’s the retail and restaurant industry likes it. Wal-Mart and Wall Street are now allied in this unholy pro-free trade alliance.
BILL MOYERS: How so? Why Wall Street and Wal-Mart?
JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Because Wal-Mart has dedicated factories in China manufacturing at the cheapest possible rate. People working for 15, 20, 25 cents an hour, making stuff to sell in Wal-Marts in the United States. Generally speaking, they want the cheapest labor possible making – goods at the cheapest possible rates so that they can buy them cheaply and sell them more cheaply. In exchange, we get $8.00, $9.00 an hour jobs at Wal-Mart. That’s what the people are faced with.
Which brings me around to where I started here. Actions speak louder than words. The words can really change meaning of course. At one time, “Nazi” was okay. Then it wasn’t. And now, it’s starting to become okay again. Why? The people need to be divided in order for them to be more easily conquered. Capitalist expansion isn’t going to stop. That’s how capitalism works; produce and sell until the resources needed for production literally don’t exist. And armies that depend on oil (the extraction of which uses water and natural gas) aren’t going away voluntarily. Iraq illustrates the problem nicely. The world’s dominant superpower needs to stay dominant. It’s army needs oil, like all armies. It’s army needs a LOT of oil, because no other military comes close to it in size. And oil is at the center of the US’s national security policy. The US stole Iraq for it’s oil, which, as the world’s largest military power, it must have for it’s military and it’s entire society (even if one of your objectives is to control oil and ensure that the entire global capitalist system, dependent on it, isn’t held hostage by powers that might act to break that US-designed system). The securing of oil, and other resources, is regarded by US planners as a ‘national security’ issue. Okay, So you use that big military machine to help you steal the oil that you (and the corporatocracy you lead) need, meaning that your military’s thirst for oil ramps up, while the people who you’ve attacked become, necessarily, potential enemies of the state (which tries to conflate it’s interests with the wider population’s interests), which in turn means more tax dollars for a military in order to deal with (not so shadowy) threats to ‘national security’. It’s absolutely mad. And godless. And temporary – if there’s a real God, which I believe there is.
“Every nation with a significant need for imported energy is contributing to the intensity of this struggle, but there can be no ignoring the dramatic impact of China’s soaring growth rates. As recently as 1990, China accounted for a mere 8 percent of global energy consumption while the United States was absorbing 24 percent of the available supply and the Western European nations 20 percent. But China’s growth in the past decade and a half has been so vigorous that, by 2006, its net energy use had jumped to 16 percent of total world consumption. If its growth continues at this torrid pace, China will hit the 21 percent mark by 2030 – exceeding all other countries, including the United States. The challenge for China, of course, will be to procure all that additional energy. To succeed, the Chinese leadership will have to oversee a substantial increase in the yield of its domestic energy production while obtaining staggering quantities of imported fuels, especially oil. By the nature of things, this can only happen at the expense of other energy-starved nations. No wonder the rise of China has produced such alarm among older industrial powers.” – Michael Klare, “Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet – The New Geopolitics of Energy” page 12
No wonder we are all here. ‘Leaders’ didn’t possess a lick of wisdom. Or godliness. Now here we are. No nation can stand down and quit oil without risking being devoured by some other armed and dangerous corporatocracy state. The nation that can least afford to do that is the one that has been the most violent and attacked the most countries, namely the United States. Therefore it won’t. Combining a lack of imagination, a lack of principles, a lack of wisdom and, now, the constrictions of a mafia capitalist system – in which the weak are preyed upon – means that perhaps China ‘must’ challenge the US for global dominance. If it runs out of gas on the oily, neoliberal highway, every wolf will come out of the woods and devour the passengers, with the biggest wolf getting the choicest body parts. That too, is what the Chinese government tells its people ‘national security’ means. It doesn’t mean a world in which nation states cooperate, peacefully co-exist and consider, wisely, the fact that mankind is an interdependent proposition. But this is a ‘no win’ situation. The nation that wins the resource wars, loses, along with the burning, dying planet and every life form on it. Unless God steps in.
Corporatocracy states are the beastly creatures they are. They won’t change, clearly. The crap they tell their people about national security as they get nastier due to their desperate efforts to preserve not the good life of all people everywhere, but the good life for their class, will have to accomplish a number of objectives. A level of chaos will keep the people distracted, frightened, unfocussed and, hopefully, not thinking about what leaders are really up to. A program will be needed that will indoctrinate the people while dividing them. A segment of the population will be susceptible to the indoctrination and help with the dividing of their own class. You have to teach them that capitalism, not communism, is the true religion. There will be no space in the face of hostility, terror and fear for citizens, pro-corporatocracy and anti-corporatocracy alike, to think critically so as to know that they have all been victims of bedarkened leaders and the 1%’s perverted and suicidal priorities. (Individuals are another matter. There will always be individuals, here and there, who understand what’s going on. They will be outnumbered and unable to influence the course of events.) People won’t be in the mood to hear explanations for how we got here, how today’s capitalists aren’t capitalists and how today’s capitalism isn’t capitalism. There will be no time for thoughtful reflection. The only dialog there will be will be angry accusations of “Nazis!” and “fascists!” on one side and vicious accusations of “commies!” and “pinkos!” and “Left side!” on the other side.
From elites’ standpoint, You have to do whatever it takes to break the people’s resistance to your rapaciousness and your methods will include conflating the good (fossil-fuelled) life that the people in Western countries enjoy with the armies that guarantee that, just as Thomas Friedman does. You have to promote the idea that Western fossil-fuelled civilization is godly and evolved. Only barbarians can’t see it. Then you push it further. The barbarians will attack you because they don’t agree with you. So you should attack them. They are trying to deprive you of your hard-earned paradise and drag you into their dark hell. How to deal with that? Don’t let them! Fight back. Defend national security and your way of life that’s no threat to anyone. And if you have the power to do so, then all the better. They can pay for attacking you with their resources.
Indeed, Imperialism – aggression by one or more countries toward one or more countries, for gain – is conveniently seen by many as positive. People, like Canada’s Michael Ignatieff, argue for it. But the point is, the Nazi ideology, like a cigarette, was an effective delivery mechanism. Cigarettes deliver the drug nicotine. Nazi ideology delivers the drug of benevolent, righteous imperialism. Indoctrinate the people and focus their their thoughts on proper things. And motivate them. With slick images and symbols (the swastika and newer fascist symbols), sometimes welded to nationalism, to help with the sense of belonging to a group of like-minded people, you can rally people to the cause of fighting the enemy and preserving your enlightened civilization and evolved way of life. You can rally your people to the imperialism you do for the benefit of yourself and your relatively tiny, privileged class – until you no longer have food because your Nazi-loving Bayer corporation has killed the bees, and until you have superstorms caused by a boiling earth because your Nazi-loving corporations don’t care whether they are causing catastrophic climate change, and until you have to kill each other for the last remaining fresh water because you’ve polluted it and wasted it to get the oil you needed for your armies and minerals to continue building your hellish capitalist paradise.
That’s what the rehabilitation of Nazism is all about. It’s not about revising history to make the bad Hitler into a good guy. (But let’s see.) It’s about focussing the mind of those who are willing to believe in you when you earnestly preach nonsense about a clash of civilizations and the need to defend yourself and your way of life from those who hate you because you’re ‘deserving haves’ instead of ‘undeserving have-nots’. That so many of those – the appointed and self-appointed gatekeepers (thugs, mercenaries, terrorists) – who get caught up in the imperialist corporatocracy-inspired adventures (taking Gaza and it’s gas or Ukraine and it’s rich agricultural land or taking Canada and it’s oil, water and minerals) won’t personally benefit from the plundering, the way their bankrolling and propagandizing 1% instigators will, isn’t on their minds as they vent their often racist rage at the pinkos and the terrorists and the evil Left, feeling comforted and/or thrilled by the Nazi and fascist symbols on badges and clothing that they wear (and which can be purchased from a plethora of vendors), reminding them that they belong to the right camp, the strong camp, the rich camp that deserves it’s rewards.