See Below The Sticky (OpenMedia etc) For NEW CONTENT

Posted in General, Urgent | Tagged , , ,

Fake Friend Toronto Star On A Tear

Frosty Twist 450x450

Source: ‘Hottie’ Justin Trudeau returns to cold reality of Ottawa: Walkom | Toronto Star

99% of my comments, in the last few days, in the Toronto Star’s readers’ comments sections have been disappeared by gatekeepers with the rightwing Star. Judge for yourself whether they are somehow unacceptable. Then you can visit the site and view the articles I commented on and examine the vile, ignorant, racist commentary that the Star’s gatekeepers have no problem with and draw your own conclusions. The above linked-to article by Thomas Walkom was the most recent article I read and commented on. I offered 3 or 4 comments. One, so far, was accepted. I just now tried to repost a couple of others. That worked once.

FF 1
FF 2
FF 3
FF 3 b
FF 4
FF 5

An excerpt from the top of post linked-to article by Thomas Walkom follows:

Canadians have long been split on the question of whether to admit 25,000 Syrian refugees by year’s end.

Those in favour say that helping refugees from Syria’s brutal civil war is a simple matter of humanity.

Those opposed fear that doing so could allow Islamic terrorists into Canada.

Last week’s terror attacks in Paris didn’t appear to affect this divide. Angus Reid polls conducted before and after the Paris attacks came up with much the same result: about 50 per cent of Canadians oppose the Liberal plan; roughly 40 per cent support it.

As for Trudeau’s decision to pull Canadian fighter planes from the war against Islamic State militants, critics may not fully appreciate the subtlety of the Liberal position.

The Liberals have never been hesitant to send Canadian troops into battle. It was Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government that sent Canadian soldiers into the Afghan War. It was Harper’s Conservative government that withdrew them.

During the election campaign, and again last week, Trudeau made it clear that he plans to beef up Canada’s role in the ground war in Iraq, even as he brings home the RCAF’s six fighter planes.

If you actually look at the facts, Trudeau will support the American empire, right or wrong. He will continue to feed Canada’s own, extremely profitable military/intelligence industrial complex and he will certainly continue with the neoliberalism that hurts the economy, all the while allowing Canada’s sovereignty to continue to be eroded (including via free trade deals like the TPP) until the Howe’s (Bill Morneau’s old stomping grounds) vision of a North American currency, controlled by the US, and dissolution of Canada as a nation, is realized. Bright or not, Trudeau no doubt knows what trajectory this country has been on since the formation of the Trilateral Commission, and similar business groups, and their efforts to bring about their goal of an irresistible corporatocracy (embracing neoliberal, or mafia, capitalism), and he’s okay with it. He wants to be a player too, just like his predecessors who also helped to oversee the democracy-destruction and class warfare program of the powerful 1%, infected with neoconservatism (the open embrace of evil), who rule and ruin the world. There’s no socialist Trudeau. Only howlers – who might make such claims when Trudeau makes some small gesture to the Left – who howl because they’ve been encouraged to by fascist leaders who know better would suggest it. Or stupid people.


Posted in Disappeared | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Knocked And Bumped. Dots And Elephants

Pic from Nick Buxtons CD article photo by Stephen Melkisethian

*edit, November 18, 2015 – I had a nagging thought that there was one more article I came across while working on this post that I wanted to share with readers. I couldn’t remember and so let it go. I must have imagined it. Then I found it again, among my bookmarks. It’s among the links, with excerpts, at the bottom of this post and it’s by Dave Vasey.

Well, I’ve got my first, in print, byline. A byline is an article with your name attached to it. (byline = by [author’s name]). That was gratifying.

What wasn’t gratifying was seeing my original, requested, piece rejected and getting no notice, ahead of time, about that. Is that standard practice? My original, much longer and clearer piece had been confirmed for publication. So my byline, with the short piece that Watershed Sentinel did accept, can’t be seen by anyone online. It was reduced to the rank of “readers’ comments” and can only be seen in the print version of the magazine. I guess my comments were worthy of being seen, by not by many, relatively speaking. I’m left wondering whether there is anything to celebrate here. Then there’s other issues, like the issues that I, and others, are raising about enviros who ignore the military in their strategizing and reporting. (I would be bothered if I knew that this makes me sound like I’m lacking humility. I’m a big believer in humility. However, I will risk the accusation. I have some things to say and will say them. Why blog otherwise?)

You can view the original form of my comment, which Susan MacVittie (managing editor of the Watershed Sentinel) found on Rabble, here: “Sorry, Naomi Klein, social movements are not enough to save us” by Dennis Gruending. Dennis was making the point that electoral politics could not be ignored by social justice activists wanting to fix society. In my view, A much better, and more moral, discussion would have involved looking at what’s wrong with the electoral system. My comment is among others that follow the article by Dennis. My comment was riffing off of Dennis’s piece more than it was addressing it, I have to confess.

Hello Rick,

I was the person that commented on your comment.

Thank you for getting in touch.

I am interested in printing your opinion in the Watershed Sentinel because we are the voice of the grassroots environmental movement and encourage critical thinking about a variety of issues.

If you are interested in having your critique of Klein’s book and the points you’ve raised printed in our magazine, we would like your comment to be edited to 650 words. Our deadline for our summer issue is May 1, and if it doesn’t make it into the summer issue, we will use it in our Sept/Oct edition.

Let me know what you think.



Here is your comment:

I keep waiting for Naomi Klein, and those discussing her work, to notice the obvious. The US runs the world – which Stephen Harper, a worshipper of power and the powerful is very aware of, clearly. And, as Thomas Friedman correctly points out, the American way of life (and the world, largely designed by the United States, as Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin explain in their book, “The Making Of Global Capitalism”) depend for it’s continued existence on American muscle. The central feature of American national security doctrine is oil, and not just because it gives kids mountains of soon to be replaced after Christmas plastic toys and (a lot of) other goodies, but because it’s huge military is a voracious user of oil. Even Michael Klare, who explains that (and his recent TomDispatch article, titled “A Republican Neo-Imperial Vision For 2016” is important for connecting quite a few dots; and that is complemented nicely by two other articles, by Robert Parry [“The Whys Behind The Ukraine Crisis”] and Michael Hudson [“Ukraine Denouement”]), fails to mention that the pipelines that will carry Canadian bitumen to the southern coast of the US for export also happen to make that oil available to the US only, in a crisis. After all, the manouvering uncle Sam is doing in Europe doesn’t have a guaranteed outcome, as Michael Hudson, above, recently observed.

The point is that with all the pushback from the people who don’t appreciate the fracking and risk taking (and train derailments are picking up pace) with transportation of oil via trucks or pipelines, the authorities – connected to what the top wants – have no intention of letting the people get in their way.

All of this is known. Harper’s cynical ramping up of police state laws will further straightjacket, and potentially cripple, enviros doing civil disobedience in order to deal with the craziness of the oil industry which Harper et al partner with. The private sector security orgs will view all of this as investment potential. They only serve power anyway, when push comes to shove. All these dots are there, but they aren’t even hard to discern. They are big, red and discussed ad nauseum every day. And yet Klein et al carry on as though she expects the US military, and militaries of it’s (present day) allies to stand down, give up using their oiled vehicles and jets and ships and equipment and be quiet, along with the 1% who they protect. It IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

The counter pushback is there and no matter how much blowing of party horns activists do with some victory in the struggle to keep pipeline companies from stealing and destroying their land and threatening water systems and aquifers, the instruments of repression and counter pushback are ready, willing, able and uncaring. William Blum writes that deep down he is pretty sure that revolution won’t succeed because the state has the people outgunned. And it does. Literally and ideologically, since the propaganda system is up and running wonderfully and the people, I’m sorry to report, just don’t care enough to know. Therefore, The state will know for them. People are good at passive learning, which means sitting in front of their television sets and having corporate owned media feed them propaganda. A recent article (by Peter Maas, with The Intercept, titled “Oscars Make History, So Hollywood’s War Stories Need To Be True”) notes that a recent study has shown that movies are more effective at forming people’s political thinking than political ads! That’s scary when you learn how deep the CIA and Pentagon’s involvement in Hollywood is. (See Tricia Jenkins’s “The CIA In Hollywood.”)

dot Uncle Sam. dot Oil. dot Military. dot Anticipated (see Harper’s latest, namely Bill C-51) pushback by the abused people. dot Locked and loaded police, military and government and private security orgs.

Susan MacVittie / Managing Editor / Watershed Sentinel
PO Box 1270
Comox, BC V9M 7Z8

Celebrating 23 years as Western Canada’s environmental news magazine- join us and subscribe!

In Susan’s explanation for my being bumped, which she offered to me once I contacted her about not seeing my article in the magazine’s Sept/Oct 2015 issue, she said: “My apologies for not runing the article yet, you got bumped because we had a David Suzuki interview and he spoke of Naomi Klein. Also, with all of the bad news we find ourselves printing, it would be nice if your article had some sort of positive suggestion for people of how to react or what to do. Or even a suggestion for Klein’s book -e.g. another direction she could have taken.”

My comment was not a proper review of Naomi’s book, which, by the way, is awesome. My comment on Rabble was no more or less than what you see. I had ‘a’ criticism, as did David Suzuki in his piece, interestingly. But David’s ‘negativity’ didn’t seem to get him bumped.

Watershed Sentinel interviews David Suzuki:

—————- — –
WS: I heard you say once something to the effect that “we invented this economy, we can invent a different one.”

What I say is that we face the reality that we live in a world defined by the laws of nature; in physics we know that you can’t travel faster than the speed of light, we know about gravity, and the second law of thermodynamics. We live in the world, we don’t complain, we can’t change it. Laws of chemistry, laws of biology … these are all things that dictate the reality of the world around us, but other things, for example, like borders that we draw around property or territory, we will go and die to defend those borders. But do you think salmon care whether they’re going through BC or Alaskan Waters? They don’t care!

The borders that we draw mean nothing to nature and yet we try to impose them. We say we’re going to control the salmon through some international treaty. We’re not looking at it the right way, and then we invent ideas like capitalism, economics, markets, corporations, and we act as if they are forces of nature. Just read the paper! “Oh oh, market’s not looking too good today.”
We invented the damn things [markets] and if they don’t work we can change them. We can’t change nature, but we can change what we invent.

Naomi Klein nails it in her book, This Changes Everything. She says, it is capitalism itself that’s at the heart of it. I have spent decades fighting with forestry or fighting with fisheries saying “well, there are economic opportunities if we do things in another way.” Why do we let them [capitalists] shape the frame? As long as we let the discussion stay within the economic realm, we’re screwed.

WS: Yes, that’s the one thing I wanted to say to you when you first started the David Suzuki Foundation, that it was still trying to, as we used to say, “make capitalism nice.”

DS: Yeah, exactly, and that’s what the green economy is all about, but it’s still an economy based on growth. It’s just, oh we gotta be more efficient and less polluting, but basically it’s still about creating stuff and growing. We can’t grow forever in a finite world.

WS: Exactly. We know that; how do we teach that to others?

DS: Unfortunately, in Naomi’s book, she doesn’t take the next step. If capitalism is at the heart of our problem, then, how do we go about destroying it? We’ve got to build something else, and she avoids that.
– — ——————

Watershed Sentinel

“Below is part of our email exchange (Wednesday, Sept 23) and below that is the piece I wrote, in anger, that WS finally printed. At this point I really didn’t care whether they printed whatever short comment they were forcing me to make. I was able, with great difficulty, to convey the core of what I had to say in the original comment with their 350 word restriction. The task of saying, ‘authoritatively’ (sources and references), what I had to say in so few words was impossible. You’ll notice that my angle was ‘negativity that isn’t negativity’. In other words, My angle was my hurt response to being told, obliquely, that I was being too negative, a nonsense charge. The magazine is full of bad news (and stories of inspiring fightback). Only if you’re a nobody, it seems, does some rule pop up that bars you from being welcomed to the party.

“Hi Susan. Thanks for getting back to me. I get being bumped by David Suzuki, as I noted. No problem, although I think a promise made should be kept. I can’t use your edited version of my longer piece. It’s not edited in any positive way. Grammar and spelling errors were added in and the piece was simply chopped. Also, Please note the spelling of my name: …

“I simply wrote up a shorter piece that had the same thrust as my longer piece. It’s all but impossible to give the subject material the proper treatment with a 350 word count. Still, I think I can offer something passable, if you’re genuinely interested. But it’s so meager, at 350 words, I don’t know why you’d want it, especially if WS staff feel that my vibe is negative. But I’ll pass this to you and let you people decide.”

And the printed ‘comment’:

=============== === =
Naomi Klein has some bad news for the oil industry, and by extension for the US empire whose military depends on oil. All militaries are fossil fueled. That bad news doesn’t mark Naomi as negative, as she’s taken pains to explain. You’re negative when you receive information and automatically reject it, for whatever reason.

I have some bad news for Naomi. The bad news she reports to governments that need adjustment don’t address the central obstacle enviros face. I might not have a solution for how to get governments to rethink national security – dependent on fossil-fueled militaries – in this violent world, but I’m not being negative. (I personally think that it’ll take a higher power to fix this mess.)

Now, Enviros do offer reticent politicians something positive, along with the bad news, and that’s the knowledge that should they choose to see things our way, that would also give them hope for the survival of their posterity, a good way for them to think.

My good news for enviros is: Intelligence.

The more you know about your enemy, the better you’ll be able to strategize. Halford Mackinder created geopolitics by looking at a map of the globe a certain way. It explains much today, as Alfred McCoy explains in his TomDispatch article, “The Geopolitics of American Global Decline.”

Obama’s soothing statements acknowledging that oil from the tar sands isn’t for use by the US strike me as a ‘look over there’ ploy. The US ‘will’ one day need it. ‘How’ are we being played? You’ll find a hint of the thinking about the need for the US to have our oil, by whatever method, only by looking hard. It’s mentioned in Wilson Dizard’s Al Jazeera article titled “Obama faces nagging dilemma over Keystone XL pipeline.” It refers to discussion about the US keeping the oil from Canada for itself. And that would be oil, I think, that would be mainly for the military/intelligence industrial complex, which might explain why Obama both agrees with doing something about anthropogenic climate change while allowing drilling all over the place.

‘We’ can change.
= === =======================

In the email copy I sent to WS, I put enclosing marks around the word ‘We’ in the last sentence of my piece. That should have been included in the printed version. I was forced to be too economical with my words, and that ‘we’ said more than just ‘myself and others’. It was meant to point to the idea that the schizophrenic talk and behavior from Obama could stem from a decision by planners to let we the people do the right thing in regard to fossil fuel addiction, without the 1% and the military/intelligence industrial complex following the people’s example. The idea would be for our change in thinking and behavior to free up more oil for the 1% and especially for the US military. At some future point in time (which may be moot), oil production will hit it’s peak, and supposing we are still around at that time, the US will no longer be able to afford sharing it, not even with allies and not even in order to fuel the fossil-fueled, global capitalist system it created (and maneuvered to dominate) post World War Two. By taking those enclosing marks from the word “We” in my piece, that meaning was lost and meaningless was introduced.

Jean Philippe Rushton vs David Suzuki at the University of Western Ontario Feb 8 1989

That was the ‘bump’. The ‘knock’ occurred many years ago when I sent David Suzuki, via snail mail, a letter that he didn’t appreciate. He sent me a nasty postcard telling me (once I could decipher his awful handwriting) that we had nothing to talk about. He said that I started from completely different assumptions and he didn’t explain what he meant by that. (My letter dealt with an upcoming debate David was to have with a racist professor. And if David preferred that some other person debate the late Jean Philippe Rushton back in 1989, which I now see is the case, then perhaps that made him prickly when dealing with any criticism that he deemed ridiculous or unsupportive.) What I said in my letter to David was that he was setting out to argue with someone who had the same foundational belief in biological evolution that he holds. I think that what David was saying to me was that you could have the same foundational belief in biological evolution as another, but that doesn’t prevent that other person from using that foundational belief to publish racist, vile beliefs and it doesn’t mean that others who are decent can’t also believe in biological evolution. (Yes, I would have agreed with that. Still…) David didn’t want to call Rushton a racist and said during the debate that he didn’t know whether Rushton was or wasn’t a racist. David did regard JP’s science as junk, but not entirely. David’s real issue with Rushton’s work was that it was both scientifically faulty, a bad thing in itself, but also had the potential to cause a lot of social unrest, which made support of it by academia and government unacceptable. I did not follow up on this debate back in 1989. I don’t remember exactly when I got my first computer, but it would have been around this time. And I didn’t have internet for a while. Then it was dial up. When did YouTube come out? I just did a quick check now and found a YouTube video of the event. I no doubt only knew what I knew from stumbling upon something in the paper. It would have been easy enough for me to miss follow up reportage in the paper.

Before I finish this post, I will view the debate. From Googling tonight I see that there are a few articles about the event as well, although I haven’t sorted through them.

Still, David’s response to me wasn’t in the democratic spirit. I’m not a racist and never was one. I’m a big believer in human rights. Maybe David just doesn’t like religious people – if they’re nobodies. He could have sent me a normal letter with just a few lines explaining his position. Instead, he sent me a postcard with his face filling out the borders and his scribbled, nasty response on the back. He knew I’d enjoy getting that in the mail. That was the low point of my letter writing hobby. I used to write letters to all kinds of people – and out of them all only David’s response was hostile – partly because I am religious and felt that it was a good way to minister and witness to others, as I was trained to do when I was with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t think I was with Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time I wrote to David. Even after I decided to quit associating with them (I had too many disagreements with them about beliefs and something else happened that soured me on them.), I continued to believe that preaching (which I know is a word that has ugly connotations) was something I must do, provided it is done properly (only to those interested, never with your foot in the door). I even considered going door to door independently. As for David’s postcard to me, I was keeping it in a special album that I lent to a fellow security guard who shortly after that disappeared. That was the last time I saw my album. Nobody at work even knew where he went. He was Pakistani. But there wasn’t any information on the post card other than the short nasty response David gave me, above. (I did also get an interesting reply from the PMO about a letter I sent having to do with marijuana. It wasn’t overtly nasty. But it was cold.)

I just finished watching the video. After all these years, I finally heard the debate! Fascinating. The audience was annoying however. Everyone wants attention. Once you have an official bad guy up on stage, then the seekers for attention, if they’re there, will let rip. David Suzuki began by congratulating Canadians on being so nice. He did that after JP Rushston spoke for 20 minutes and when he began his opening 20 minute comment. As the debate progressed, and once the mic was passed around to audience members, the howlers started, each one feeding the courage and brazeness of the next. It wasn’t out of control nasty, but it was nasty. One idiot old guy was out in the aisle offering to take his penis out and show everyone, for example. Yee frikking haw. There’s your precious, noble voters, David.

International Peace Bureau

I recently came across a few articles relating to the topic that my comment in WS looks at. In one instance, the author (and others whose information she uses) has been working (through an organization called the International Peace Bureau) on this particular subject for a while. IPB has really dug into the subject of the US military’s use of fossil fuels. The main author is Tamara Lorincz. I came across her draft working paper, “Demilitarization for Deep Decarbonization: Reducing Militarism and Military Expenditures to Invest in the UN Green Climate Fund and to Create Low-Carbon Economies and Resilient Communities” a few days ago. Tonight, I came across her more recent overview of that same draft report. In her report, she refers to other sources dealing with the same subject. So the interested reader does have some material to examine should he (or…) be interested in digging deeper into this subject. Here’s an excerpt from “Demilitarization for Deep Decarbonization”:

3.2 Fossil Fuel Use by the Military

With his research on military emissions, Barry Sanders, author of The Green Zone stated, “People need to recognize that severe and serious reductions must take place in that one sector – the military – that is responsible for bringing the world to the brink of extinction faster than any other.” The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest consumer of oil in the U.S. and the largest industrial consumer of oil in the world. According to a 2012 Congressional report, Department of Defense Energy Initiatives, approximately 75% of DoD’s energy is for operational use that includes training, moving and sustaining military forces and weapon platforms for military operations; 25% is for installations including facilities and non-tactical vehicles. The report stated that the DoD consumed approximately 117 million barrels of oil per year at a cost of $17.3 billion. Table 1 presents the breakdown of fuel consumption and cost by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Army in 2012.

table from Tamaras decarbonation draft report

Based on this level of annual fuel consumption, the DoD emits approximately 49 million metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year, which is roughly equivalent to annual greenhouse gas emissions from 10 million passenger vehicles or 4 million homes. The military’s carbon “bootprint” would be much higher if the petroleum consumption and cement production by its private contractors and on its overseas military bases were included in the calculations. Our report Warfare of Welfare? describes some of the environmental and social damage caused to local communities by foreign military bases.

A retired professor of environmental health from the Boston University School of Public Health looked into greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts of the U.S. military. In her article, The Military Assault on Global Climate, H. Patricia Hynes stated, “Militarism is the most oil-exhaustive activity on the planet, growing more so with faster, bigger, more fuel-guzzling planes, tanks and naval vessels employed in more intensive air and ground wars.” Consider the fuel use by the following weapons systems and vehicles as cited by the Costs of War Project and in the book, The Environmental Costs of Militarism:

* Apache helicopters get .5 miles to the gallon (or it used approximately 300 gallons during eight
hours of operation)

* M1 Abrams tank gets .2 miles to the gallon (compare this with a fuel efficient car like the Toyota
Prius that gets 51 mpg)

* Bradley Fighting Vehicles get 1 mile to the gallon

* Battleships consume 68 barrels (2856 gallons) per hour

* Non-nuclear aircraft carriers burn approximately 134 barrels (5628 gallons) per hour

* Arleigh Burke-class destroyer typically burns 23 barrels (1,000 gallons) of petroleum fuel an hour

* B-52 long-range bomber burns 80 barrels (3,334 gallons) per hour

* F-15 fighter jet burns 342 barrels (14,400 gallons) per hour

Tanks, destroyers and fighters jets are highly energy inefficient, toxic and disproportionately contribute to
climate change. In addition, the cumulative, life-cycle emissions and environmental impacts of these
weapon systems are not known. Let’s not forget the purpose of these weapons systems; they are designed
to injure and kill people and destroy infrastructure.

Recall that the Air Force is the largest consumer of petroleum products in the military. Aircraft fuel is kerosene turbine fuel, also known as JP-8. It is the most carbon intensive and emits the highest CO2 because of its additives and radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Fighter jets also cause severe noise pollution from sonic booms and release toxic air pollutants, including cancer-causing benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Having studied the environmental and climate impacts of the military, Sanders concluded that the only way to reduce the greenhouse gases to zero is to end war; the IPB agrees.

“Lest We Forget: Tar Sands And War” by Dave Vasey

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

Since 2003, Canada has been the primary pump for the US, displacing Saudi Arabia as the historic top exporter. Currently, 97% of crude exports from Canada go directly to the US and in 2015, tar sands exports reached over 3 million barrels per day. The US military uses 80% of the total fuel burned by the US government each year and bitumen is most easily converted to jet and diesel fuel, both used heavily by the military. Thus, tens of millions of barrels of Alberta crude have fueled the planes, drones, tanks, and other weapons that have killed so many in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya amongst other places over the last decade.

The US military is the single largest institutional consumer of oil globally. If it were a country it would rank 34th in terms of carbon emissions. The military consumes over 100 million barrels are each year, representing a major source of global carbon emissions. So, not only are US wars responsible for creating refugee crises through imperial aggression, its emission have contributed to the growing climate refugee crisis. The Environmental Justice Foundation has estimated that the number of global climate refugees could be as high as 150 million by 2050.

“The Elephant in Paris – Guns and Greenhouse Gases” by Nick Buxton

Here’s an excerpt from Nick’s above linked-to article:

There is no shortage of words in the latest negotiating document for the UN climate negotiations taking place in Paris at the end of November – 32,731 words to be precise and counting. Yet strangely there is one word you won’t find: military. It’s a strange omission, given that the US military alone is the single largest user of petroleum in the world and has been the main enforcer of the global oil economy for decades.

The history of how the military disappeared from any carbon accounting ledgers goes back to the UN climate talks in 1997 in Kyoto. Under pressure from military generals and foreign policy hawks opposed to any potential restrictions on US military power, the US negotiating team succeeded in securing exemptions for the military from any required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Even though the US then proceeded not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the exemptions for the military stuck for every other signatory nation. Even today, the reporting each country is required to make to the UN on their emissions excludes any fuels purchased and used overseas by the military.

I came across this article, below, earlier but it too is fairly recent.

“History Doesn’t Go In A Straight Line” Tommaso Segantini interviews Noam Chomsky

An excerpt (of Chomsky speaking) from the above linked-to article follows:

What’s called the capitalist system is very far from any model of capitalism or market. Take the fossil fuels industries: there was a recent study by the IMF which tried to estimate the subsidy that energy corporations get from governments. The total was colossal. I think it was around $5 trillion annually. That’s got nothing to do with markets and capitalism…

And the same is true of other components of the so-called capitalist system. By now, in the US and other Western countries, there’s been, during the neoliberal period, a sharp increase in the financialization of the economy. Financial institutions in the US had about 40 percent of corporate profits on the eve of the 2008 collapse, for which they had a large share of responsibility.

There’s another IMF study that investigated the profits of American banks, and it found that they were almost entirely dependent on implicit public subsidies. There’s a kind of a guarantee — it’s not on paper, but it’s an implicit guarantee — that if they get into trouble they will be bailed out. That’s called too-big-to-fail.

And the credit rating agencies of course know that, they take that into account, and with high credit ratings financial institutions get privileged access to cheaper credit, they get subsidies if things go wrong and many other incentives, which effectively amounts to perhaps their total profit. The business press tried to make an estimate of this number and guessed about $80 billion a year. That’s got nothing to do with capitalism.

It’s the same in many other sectors of the economy. So the real question is, will this system of state capitalism, which is what it is, survive the continued use of fossil fuels? And the answer to that is, of course, no.

By now, there’s a pretty strong consensus among scientists who say that a large majority of the remaining fossil fuels, maybe 80 percent, have to be left in the ground if we hope to avoid a temperature rise which would be pretty lethal. And it is not happening. Humans may be destroying their chances for decent survival. It won’t kill everybody, but it would change the world dramatically.

Finally, Recall my reference to Obama’s schizophrenic approach to fossil fuels. Again, My theory about that is that planners have decided that we the people can quit fossil fuels if we like, but their class won’t. The military needs it and the 1% would like to continue living in the lifestyle to which it is accustomed. The theory has some weaknesses. The Right actually likes a fight – when it feels that it possesses a preponderance of force. Also, The capitalists in security no doubt view social unrest as investment potential. Then again, Perhaps they feel there will still be enough social unrest, should the US admin decide that it should support the people in their effort to quit fossil fuels, since, as the CD staff make clear, pipelines and oil train bombs will be aplenty one way or another.

“Obama’s Rejection Of Keystone XL Is Victory, But That’s Not The Whole Story” by CD staff

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

Obama took the occasion of the Keystone announcement to tout his administration’s environmental track record—but should rejection of this one project be allowed to overshadow his adminstration’s numerous shortcomings when it comes to climate?

“America is leading on climate change by working with other big emitters like China to encourage and announce new commitments to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions,” Obama said, adding that “if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground.”

However, Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline comes only months after he approved offshore drilling in the Arctic, an affront to climate activists and a near-fatal blow to vulnerable communities and marine life that was only avoided when Royal Dutch Shell called off its exploration project in September.

Through his presidency, Obama has repeatedly been criticized for bragging that he has expanded domestic oil and gas production, and critics say his “all-of-the-above” energy strategy proves he simply does not understand the dangers posed by runaway climate change nor the urgency needed for a rapid and just transition to renewables…

Then there’s the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the 12-nation agreement and “corporate power grab nightmare” that Obama has pushed for strongly even as experts warn the deal is an absolute “nightmare” when it comes to environment and, in fact, never even mentions the term “climate change.”…

In the U.S., a vast network consisting of thousands of miles of new pipelines has been built in recent years. As Steve Horn, a freelance investigative journalist who writes for DeSmogBlog, said on Friday: “While the Obama White House Keystone XL decision has been touted by most environmentalists and criticized by Big Oil and its front groups, the truth is much more complex and indeed, dirty. That’s because for years behind the scenes the Obama Administration has quietly been approving hundreds of miles-long pieces of pipeline owned by pipeline company goliath Enbridge.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Little Person-Bashing

Frosty Twist 450x450

Russia-bashing RT — CrossTalk

This show, hosted by Peter Lavelle, featured the following panelists: Vladimir Golstein, Gilbert Doctorow, and Peter Kuznick.

My online, disappeared, post in response to the above linked-to episode of RT’s Crosstalk follows:

Peter Kuznick stated that the US has 100 bases spread around the world, which common sense would tell us can’t be the case. I had a quick look, because I just read a book that gives a figure for that. Natylie Baldwin and Kermit Heartsong are the authors of “Ukraine – Zbig’s Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated.” It’s not a perfect book. The authors toss out stuff like the ‘fact’ that there was no massacre at Tiananmen Square (page 152; the index in this book gets pages wrong). I have never heard anyone suggest that. I have never read anything that suggests that is the case. I’m not saying the authors are wrong. But, If you’re going to toss out super controversial statements like that, I would think you should 1. note that your position is controversial and 2. back up your position solidly. There is a reference to a Wikileaks cable. Still… Also, the authors, in making the case (well) that Putin is a victim of US machinations related to it’s ongoing zeal for the great game, fall into the trap of painting Putin and Russia and China as the good guys versus the bad guys. That’s not the world I know. In regard to Ukraine, yes, Putin is on much higher moral ground than the West and it’s compliant media.

“…President Putin was quick to point out that not only was the US’s military budget 10 times that of Russia’s (Russia at $50 billion versus the US’s at $575 billion), but that while Russia only had two military bases outside of its borders (Kyrgystan, Tajikistan), the US had as many as 1,000 military bases spread throughout the world (Hitchens 2014).”

The book, by the way, is a great update on the status of the great game that uncle Sam forces the world to play – at the expense of the people everywhere.

Either the RT News organization is anti-social – unless you’re actually contributing to it’s operation – or it’s very riddled with gatekeepers and the person who responded to an email I sent is a gatekeeper. I emailed them about not being able to change my password (and discovered that you can’t!) and received a curt response that told me much. That was my second email. A couple weeks previously, I emailed them about my first disappeared comment and received no reply. After someone did reply to me when I emailed RT again, two weeks later, and told me to read their rules for posting, I then sent them my post and asked what was wrong with it. I received no reply of course.

Posted in Disappeared | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Thom Hartmann Interviews Max Blumenthal

Frosty Twist 450x450

Zionism & Israel’s war with Hamas: A conversation with Max Blumenthal RT — The Big Picture

There’s no transcript for the above linked-to video in which Thom Hartmann interviews Max Blumenthal. At some future time, when I have the time and energy, I’ll possibly review the video and take notes so that I can offer you something here. In the meantime, I’ll just note that the interview is largely about the situation in Gaza and focusses mainly on the recent 2014 assault on Gaza by Israel. (And I’ll present my online, disappeared, comment below.) The Israelis named that latest mass murder “Operation Protective Edge” (which Max says is also called “Strong Cliff”). The interview was essentially a review of Max’s book, titled “The 51 Day War – Ruin And Resistance In Gaza.” Anyone who cares about Palestinians and human rights needs to read Max’s book. Max is actually there for some time during the assault. He, and his friend Dan Cohen, bravely set out to see for themselves what was going on and to interview the besieged Gazans. If you don’t choke up reading this account, then you’re not human.

I commented about the show, once I figured out how to register, but the comment never appeared. The following is my online comment, in it’s original typo-ridden form, in response to the above linked-to post:

Well, I’ve read Max from time to time. His reportage on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is important. I just did a blog post that used material from books I have, two which I’m still reading, by Noam Chomsky, Illan Pappé and Max. The book I’m reading by Max is his recent book, “The 51 Day War.” We can learn much from all of those people.

But when Max, who clearly is aware of the great game, suggests that Israel doesn’t have the same degree of support in the US as it had, I am not sure he’s on the right track. As Chomsky and others note, Israel is the US’s stationary aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean (along with Saudi Arabian, Turkey and Egypt). When Western journos talk about Israel as being a Western democratic outpost in the Middle East, they are right about the outpost part of it. Of course, the West, including the compliant, corporate owned, media are going to call Israel democratic, even while the Knesset passes a law (2010) that requires (‘future’ citizens, unlike the original form of this law which would have included present and future citizens of Israel) to swear an oath of loyalty to the ‘Jewish’ state. But if you had democracy in the Middle East and in the wider region, then the US would be asked to get the hell out, which we can’t have. That’s why we can’t have democracy there, not even within Israel’s grand jail called Gaza, where Hamas won an election that the Congressional Research Service called “free and fair,” as Max recounts in his book. Of course, Western journos all report that Arabs see Iran as the big threat in the region. But they shamelessly ignored the Arab main street and reported what the Arab people’s traitorous leaders want.

The US, playing it’s great game – of domination of the planet, which requires it to be vigilant to prevent the rise of any bloc, such as a Eurasian bloc that includes, naturally, Russia – that might have the power to go it’s own way (outside of the Washington Consensus), has encircled Russian and China. Recklessly. Ukraine could go very wrong, and hasn’t gone entirely right for the US. It’s pushed Russian to accelerate positive programs within it’s borders, including re-industrialization, while it grows closer to China. Readers here can check out Natylie Baldwin’s and Kermit Heartsong’s “Ukraine – Zbig’s Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated,” to get much good information about all of this. (I have some issues with the book, but it’s an awesome resource.)

Israel is essentially a base. As others have noted, Israeli leaders long ago decided to embrace alliance with the US and the West rather than pursue peace with it’s Arab neighbors and rather than treat it’s Palestinian charges with fairness and compassion. It’s only gone downhill since then. Illan Pappé bemoans the way leaders in Israel (like elsewhere, including the Ukraine, where Jews would not be welcome) have poisoned the minds of the youth of Israel. They’ve become bloodthirsty, racist monsters who see ‘all’ Palestinians as combatants worthy of destruction.

Max misses the fact that the Israel, however disrespected it’s leaders may be in some circles in Washington, is an important component in it’s great game. That won’t change until a higher power puts an end to that game and the greater game that it’s part of, namely the godless game of ‘riches for the strongest’.

I’m also not keen on Max’s characterization of the recent slaughter of Gazans as a war. Is it bravado? Is it Max’s attempt to honor Gazans, Hamas and the Qassam Brigade’s principled, brave approach to resistance? That wouldn’t be too bad, but I think Max needs to be clear about it because there’s a downside to employing that characterization. It’s precisely the characterization that Israel and it’s supporters use to evade the charge of having committed crimes in it’s slaughters of Palestinians. However brave and principled the Qassam Brigages are, they are still part of a people who are occupied. Israel actually has, legally, responsibilities toward the Gazans, as an occupied people. And that’s what makes it’s assaults major crimes. Take that context away and you have a weaker narrative.

RT 3

I emailed RT about my disappeared post. I received no reply. A couple weeks later, I emailed RT again, specifically about their commenting feature. I had popped into the site again to have a look around. I checked the comments attached to the Blumenthal interview. There was no change and only one comment. Hmmm. Anyway, Another show caught my attention. It was about Russia bashing. It was so so. I thought I’d add a comment and so I registered again, since I seemed to have lost my computer-generated password for the site. Again, I didn’t know whether it was me or RT, but I couldn’t figure out how to change my password and that’s when I decided to email RT again.

I asked whether I could change my password or not. To my dismay, I cannot. RT has attitude, like those who attack it and Russia. And that’s because Russia and RT are a part of the wild beast of corporatocracy and don’t have God’s blessing. That’s how it works. RT seems fine (relatively), but it’s not angelic. I’ll still visit it and I’ll still denounce those opportunists who attack RT because they want to curry favor with the US, which plays it’s great game and is ramping up Cold War II, which involves promoting, via lies and propaganda, hatred of Russia, which in turn involves rhetoric about evil communists and the Russian plot to expand and take over the world. Opportunists like Michael Weiss and Peter Pomerantsev are happy to trade in this Orwellian, provocative cold war thinking and language because they have surveyed the geopolitical landscape, know the score in that regard and they see an opportunity to get attention and make money by siding with uncle Sam in his contest with Russia (and China). They therefore act accordingly.

My email exchange with someone (whose first language isn’t English, I would wager) follows:


Unfortenately you can’t change the password, but you can get a new one

About comments, we don’t delete them for political, personal or any other reasons.
We have some rules for posting comments on our web site (, you should read them before you post your comment.
Your comment may be no offensive (it’s only one of the rules), but if it breaks other rules it will be delete.

Best regards,
RT team

От: Arrbyy . [my email address]
Отправлено: 9 ноября 2015 г. 14:59
Тема: Gatekeepers?

I attempted to register with RT a few weeks ago. I was looking for info about Max Blumenthal, whose book “The 51 Day War” I had just read. I found an interview of him by Thom Hartmann. I then thought I’d toss in a comment. I had a hard time registering, partly because it’s not clear that a couple of separate emails will be sent, with a password only in the second email. Then I found that there is no way to change the password. Either that, or the participant’s settings is not easy to find. I can’t find it. I’ll keep my machine generated password until I can change it to something I’ll remember.

If you can clue me in here that would be great.

Also, I’ve already emailed you about my disappeared comment, in connection with the Hartmann interview of Max Blumenthal. I received no response and have decided to blog about it. I don’t know whether that’s RT or gatekeepers ( within RT. It doesn’t change the fact that my polite, uncontroversial (I would think) comment was disappeared. I have a section on my blog dealing with disappeared posts. That’s what my first comment to RT now is, officially. I will publicize the fact that my comment (which I will include in my post) to RT was disappeared because that’s what I do. If you want to say something about it, that’s fine. I’m all ears. I only mention it to you, in this email, because I happen to be emailing you about my password problem.

Thanks in advance.

[my name]


RT doesn’t, as my email correspondent notes, ‘delete comments for political, personal or any other reasons’, but that only means something if they don’t also have a long list of ‘do nots’ that they explain ‘can’ lead to the deletion of your post or posts. The list is so long that it would be the easiest thing in the world for someone to find a reason to disappear any post, no matter how polite or what the content is. Your post can be deleted for complaining about a deleted post! That’s attitude, plain and simple. Your post can also be disappeared for containing standalone links. That isn’t explained, but I assume that what is meant is standalone links that are not related to the comment you make. I sometimes throw in links, outside of the main body of my comment, when I post comments online. But they are always related to the comment or subject I’m commenting on.

You get the reputation you give yourself, in the long run. Here’s RT’s commenting rules, which my friend told me I should read:

Posting rules

The spirit of our ‘Question more’ motto should guide your stance towards online etiquette, posting, and people protocols. We encourage you to share views, express opinions, agree and disagree with others, discuss and debate.

We expect you to do so in a civilized manner and respect the rights of others to views and beliefs that are not yours. RT retains the right to delete or edit any comments we deem detrimental to discussion or which violate site protocol.

Posting protocol

Your post will be deleted if it is

rude, insulting, a personal attack, abusive, derogatory or defamatory, sexual in nature

Your post will be deleted for containing

hate speech; racist, sexist, homophobic slurs; if it is discriminatory
incitement; advocates violence, public disorder or criminal behavior
profanity (as well as attempts to bypass profanity filters by substituting letters with symbols for instance), crude language
pornographic text or web links
spam, self-promotion, advertisements
messages pertaining to hacking, cracking, warez or other illegal activities
copyright material posted without permission
complaints about your posts being deleted
any privacy violation whatsoever

RT may delete comments if they are:

written in any language other than English
repetitive, duplicates
incoherent, inconsistent with what is considered normal writing
irrelevant to the story, post, video, image
meaningless, contain stand-alone links
written by individuals with inappropriate usernames
written by individuals impersonating someone else
quoting a message violating any of the above mentioned rules

Opinions and information contained in the comments belong to the authors of the comments. While RT strives to keep all objectionable messages off the site, it will not be held responsible for the content of comments posted by users. If you come across a comment that you think should be brought to the attention of the moderators, please use the feedback form to share your concerns.

These rules are subject to change without prior notice. Serial offenders will be banned from posting the comments. By posting your messages on this site you give RT permission to publish/reproduce them on the website or in other media platforms.

Posted in Disappeared | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Being Economical With The Truth Is The Most Important Thing

Bill 'Big Bucks' Morneau

Bill ‘Big Bucks’ Morneau

Source: Trudeau’s Cabinet Has Diversity, But Conservative White Men Will Keep the Purse Strings | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Dru Oja Jay follows:

..which leads to me to the fact that the two most important positions, Treasury Board and Finance  —  the folks that control what can get funded, when and with how much  —  are a former Tory and a Bay Street boys clubber, respectively.

Scott Brison and Bill Morneau are decidedly status quo choices, continuing the tradition that saw Obama bring in Timothy Geithner and Jean Chretien appoint Paul Martin as finance minister. We all remember how well those appointments went, right?

Finance Minister Bill Morneau went to the University of Western Ontario and the London School of Economics. He is the multi-millionaire founder of a company that provides “human resources services” and manages pension funds for companies and government agencies. (According to SEC filings, his net worth is north of $26 million; his annual salary before he left to run for the Liberals was $1 million.)

From 2010 to 2014, Morneau served as Chair of the C.D. Howe Institute, a nonpartisan, economically conservative think tank that credits itself with having an impact promoting continental “free trade,” lower corporate tax rates, and reducing inflation. As Finance Minister, we can expect him to wield nearly as much power as the Prime Minister  —  perhaps more…

There’s a lot of talk about what kind of message this diverse cabinet sends to Canadians about new eras and new ways of doing things.

There’s another message that is unspoken, but can also be heard quite clearly: talented young MPs, women and people of colour can be the face of a new Canadian government, but conservative white men will hold onto the purse strings, thank you very much.

My online response to the above linked-to article follows:

In this one area alone, namely the appointment of Bill Morneau as finance minister, Trudeau has put his name in stone on a monument to the success of anti-people and anti-livable earth and pro inequality neoliberalism. Bill Morneau ( is the former Chairman of the C.D. Howe Institute. It’s bad enough that these anti-democratic rightwing think tanks have, through corporate owned media and Canada’s zombie Liberal class, poisoned the minds of Canadians. But here, residents of Cabbage Town in Toronto (Toronto Center) have, to a great extent, elected the bloody C.D. Howe! Way to go fellow Canadians!

From Donald Gutstein’s “Harperism,” the following:

“The combined firepower of neo-liberalism think tanks over forty years has reshaped the Canadian climate of ideas to such an extent that it will take years – perhaps decades – for those views to change again. On top of these ideological underpinnings, [Stephen] Harper has fundamentally modified the relationship between state and society. The theme is simple: we must remove obstacles to the attainment of a state governed not by duly elected officials but by market transactions, because economic freedom is more fundamental than political freedom.” -pg 16

Translation: The prosperity of the 1% (‘economic freedom’) is all that matters. And, taking into account the heavy influence of neoconservatism in Canada’s Conservative and Liberal Parties, that economic freedom ‘should’ come at the expense of the 99%. Class warfare is a positive. It makes the ‘warriors’, who are doing fine, feel alive. The paradigm is ‘riches for the strongest’, a contradiction in terms if we accept that we were not meant to live like dogs eating dogs, with winners and losers.

Continuing with Gutstein’s book…

“In 2006, a new foundation began funding neo-liberal infrastructure after Donner cut back its direct support. Peter Munk, who made a fortune as head of Barrick Gold, created the Aurea (“golden,” in Latin) Foundation. The foundation grabbed public attention as sponsor of the Munk Debates, which pits high profile liberals against conservatives to debate controversial topics such as: “I would rather get sick in the United States than Canada,” “Climate change is mankind’s defining crisis and demands a commensurate response,” and “Foreign aid does more harm than good.” The debates serve two purposes. They elevate conservative positions to parity with long-standing liberal viewpoints, crowding out progressive ones. They also mask the foundation’s more financially significant activities: doling out nearly two million dollars a year to Canadian neo-liberal organizations. Major recipients (20017-2012) include… the C.D. Howe Institute ($644,000)…” -pages 63 & 64

There can be no more powerful rightwing think tank in Canada than the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, who former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien [when finance minister under Pierre Trudeau] was proud to tell everyone “I never prepare a budget without seeking out the opinions of the Business Council on National Issues..” Recall how Paul Martin was shilling for Trudeau in the recent election. The corporate owned press marvelled at how ironic it was that deficit fighter Paul was helping to sell deficit spender Justin. Even the (fake) Left kept (and keeps) yammering about how the Liberals outflanked the NDP by pledging to do deficit spending, completely ignoring the fact that, as Emma Lui with the Council of Canadians (suddenly silent on this subject, like Duncan Cameron, who also raised the alarm) pointed out, Trudeau plans to utilize Harper’s P3 fund to do his deficit spending, something that rightwingers like Paul Martin would actually have no problem with, since P3 are essentially privatization by stealth.

Paul Martin and Bill Morneau - photo by Kmathewm (own)

Paul Martin and Bill Morneau – photo by Kmathewm (own)

Here’s what Maude Barlow and Bruce Campbell have to say about Paul Martin and the BCNI (now Canadian Council of Chief Executives), on page of “Straight Through The Heart – How The Liberals Abandoned The Just Society And What Canadians Can Do About It”:

Who wins in the total transformation of these Liberals? The business community, which has shown its appreciation to the Liberal Party (to “Welcome [it] back from the wilderness,” as Tom d’Aquino explains). At a recent Vancouver dinner featuring [Paul] Martin, businessmen showed their support of his budget by raising $85,000 (after expenses) for the party.”

From Tony Clarke’s “Silent Coup – Confronting The Big Business Takeover Of Canada,” pages 15 & 16, the following:

In Canada, the economic think tanks and advisory bodies provided the starting place for the infiltration of [Milton] Friedman’s theories in government bureaucracies. When the NDP under Dave Barret came to power in British Columbia, a small group of powerful B.C. corporate executives led by Pat Doyle of MacMillan Bloedel met in 1975 and discussed the formation of a propaganda think-tank to combat the “socialists.” As author Murray Dobbin explains, they brought in Michael Walker, a Newfoundlander working for the Bank of Canada, who told his backers: “If you really want to change the world, you have to change the ideological fabric of the world.”

Walker went on from there to establish the Fraser Institute, an agency explictly based on the free market theories of Milton Friedman. Focusing on the promotion of market values and cultural change, Walker and his associates at the Fraser developed a multi-faceted program that included writing anti-government and free market articles for weekly newspapers, engaging university students in discussions about free market philosophy, and distributing free market studies to legislators across the country.

However, it was the adoption of Friedmanite theories by established mainstream economic advisory bodies like the C.D. Howe Institute and the Economic Council of Canada that began to turn heads in the Ottawa bureaucracy, as well as several of the provincial capitals. During this period, the president of the C.D. Howe Institute, Carl Beige, emerged as one of the country’s chief economic gurus in the fight against increased government intervention in the economy. On almost a daily basis, Beigie made pronouncements in the business press, warning against rising budget deficits and the threats of increasing protectionism, and calling for free trade with the United States and a new role for government.

In effect, the C.D. Howe Institute became the staging ground for the resurgence of free market theories in official circles within Canada. To be sure, the Fraser Institute was known to be Canada’s No. 1 cheerleader for Friedmanite doctrines. But it was the Howe Institute, which had become recognized as Canada’s most prestigious economic think-tank under Beigie’s direction, that paved the way for legitimizing Friedman’s market theories in government circles and the mainstream press. Later, it would come as no surprise to discover that both the Howe and the Fraser Institutes were heavily funded by some of Canada’s major corporations and banks.”

Tony, in his above book, refers to the BCNI as a shadow cabinet. Indeed, It might be in that book (I’d have to closely check) or some other book or article I read many years ago, but I recall how researchers found that the papers (these orgs are hardcore pro active and have papers on everything, ready to present to legislators as ‘suggestions’) put out by the BCNI, as proposals or advice, ended up being adopted almost verbatim by the government. That’s bad enough. Today, members of the rightwing think tanks must be laughing their butts off and clanking wine glasses together at their good luck. We now just elect them, pretty much.

One more point. Just as it was never true that Stephen Harper was an economist or had a clue how to contribute to a healthy economy (from the standpoint of regular people), so too these think tanks aren’t primarily about the elevation of the economy over all else. (Harper ‘studied’ economics. Anyone, sane [] or insane, can.) Talking about the importance of the economy, without qualification, is just their language but it’s also language that they must employ to hide the reality of their embrace of inequality. But, like Stephen Harper, it’s more accurate to say that they are all about elevating their ‘riches for the strongest’ paradigm above all else. (Individually, Leaders like Harper and Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, and most of them now, are simply in it for the power, the glory and the riches, in whatever proportion each prefers. To be a player with power, you please other players with power. That’s the game and the people, some who foolishly think they should play it too, pay dearly for their ‘leaders’ to play.) They’ve all been (or ‘chose’ to be) fervent believers in neoliberalism, which, as Donald Gutstein and others note, entrenches inequality. In other words, there ‘has to be losers’. There can’t be an economy that works for all. When neoliberals blather about the economy, while promoting free trade agreements that transfer political power to unaccountable corporations, killing the voice of the people (through political representation), you know that what’s in the works isn’t good for the people. That’s why you want to preempt their pushback against exploitation with things like free trade deals. Together with propaganda, and the apathy of the people (now extreme), induced by an element of propaganda called consumerism (capitalism is the true religion; Show your devotion by spending and if you don’t have money to spend, then work more), the business community, not a nice bunch, can’t lose.

Stephen Lendman on Milton Friedman:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment