Thursday, July 3, 2014

July 3: The exceptionalism of Exceptionalism.

Obama has recently and publicly stated that he believes in American Exceptionalism with "every fibre of his being". In fact, that can be said of almost everyone in the American government - and the Canadian government. It such a strong belief that it's rather remarkable that few in the news media know have explained what it means.

In fact, without knowing what it means, a very high proportion of Canadians seem to believe in American Exceptionalism.

In brief, it means that the US has the right to do anything it likes to other countries. Laws, whether domestic or international, do not apply to the US. No other country has that right. In short, the US has the right to rule the world, and to impose it's will on others. Nobody else has such a right.

No, I am not making that up. That is really what it means - and those who use the term usually know what it means. So far as the US government is concerned, law does not exist.

Another term for that might be world dictatorship. This one is driven by the greed and arrogance of big business - and partly by the American religious background - and partly by racism.

For religious fundamentalists, it is common to see the US as an expression of God's will,  a nation destined to rule the world as God wishes it to be ruled. Then, very close to the religious aspect,  there's the racism.

Almost all empires in history have been built on racism. And, indeed, almost all social structures are based on something very like racism.

The British Empire was based on an assumption that the British were what Hitler would have a called a "super race". They were justified in conquering other peoples,in murdering them,  in stealing their resources, in abusing their people, even enslaving them because they, the English-speaking people, were racially superior. Any reading of Rudyard Kipling or almost any other British writer of a century ago or even more recent will confirm that.

Those were the days of British Exceptionalism. Hitler's notions of German racial superiority were nothing new when he embarked on his wars.

And I suspect that Canadians generally agree with these racist ideas.
 For evidence, take a look at today's A2 of the TandT. "Document questions Khadr charges"

Khadr was fifteen when he was charged with a war crime. It is illegal to charge a person of that age with a war crime.
Khadr was put into Guantanmo. That was illegal, too.
He was charged for killing a soldier. The military court that tried him said that for a civilian to kill a soldier is illegal. In fact, no such law exists. Worse - the US routinely uses civilians to kill soldiers (and civilians). The CIA routinely murders -and the CIA is civilian. Drone "pilots" fire rockets at anything that moves -soldiers, civilians, children....and many of those pilots are civilians.

Harper accepted Khadr, because he was a Canadian citizen, and put him in a Canadian prison to finish his eight years. Harper knows quite well it is illegal to hold what was a child soldier. He also knows that it was illegal of the US to invade Afghanistan in the first place. He still sent Canadians there to die, anyway - which, incidentally, underlines that Canada's presence in Afghanistan was illegal, too.

Yet Harper has hasn't lifted a finger to help Khadr. He does, though, heap praise on the current government of Ukraine - though it is illegal. Nor does it bother him that the government of Ukraine features prominent leaders of the neo-Nazi party.

And we Canadians buy it all. Now, if Khadr were a Canadian Christian, it might be different. But he's one of them there moslems that been taught to hate by our governments and our news media. And, let's recognize the truth - we don't give a damn how long he spends in jail because he's not really a Canadian like us. He's really part of an inferior race.

You don't think we're racist?

Do you go to church? Remember 9/11? Remember the outpouring of sympathy for New Yorkers? I'll bet there were prayers in church for them, maybe even a sermon. In many cases, there were also offers of financial help, accomodation for stranded US air passengers......

Were there any prayers for the more than a million killed in the illegal invasion of Iraq? The US and Saudi Arabia are largely responsible for the hiring and equipping of mercenaries who have killed so many people in Syria. It's all hundreds if times worse than 9/11. So where are the prayers? the offers of help?

There aren't any because hose people are different from us. They're inferior - and we don't give a damn about them.
The same process happens within a society. For centuries, Britain was ruled by the aristocrats who owned the land and the peasants on it. Over the years, a firm line was drawn. There was an aristocracy that had a right to rule. Its sons (usually the more stupid ones) had the right to enter the army as officers, and then to buy their way up to the higher ranks. That helps to explain the massive losses of the British army at the Battle of the Somme in World War One, under the command of Earl Haig.

It was understood. There were aristocrats who ruled because they were the children of aristocrats. They had a right to rule. By the eighteenth century, as land became less profitable, the aristocratic class sought out wealthy wives to help pay for their sagging estates. That's why Churchill's father was married Jenny Jerome, daughter of a hugely wealthy mining family in the US. (Jerome, Arizona is now a ghost mining town..

Most other people were commoners, a disparaging term whose use suggests they were regarded as inferior by birth - that is, they were genetically an inferior race. That's why, even as the aristocrats enlarged their magnificent homes and stuffed them with servants (aristocrat army officers were known to keep 50 and more personal servants, even in the field.), most of the inferior commoners lived in filth, got low pay, and died young.

Nobody cared. They were an inferior race.

That's why the British, much as they respected Churchill for his wartime leadership, voted him out as soon as the war was over. After all, their class had been killed, too. It was more than time that they got a share of the nation's wealth - in the form of medical care, improved housing,etc. - And they knew Churchill would never give it to them. Churchill was technically a commoner. But he was born to an aristocratic family - and he had nothing but contempt for commoners, just as he had nothing but contempt for all those inferior races of the empire.

North America, short of aristocrats, made use of a rising capitalist class. Increasingly, it is a class born into what its members see as a superior race, with a right to rule us inferiors. How else can one explain the bizarre incident of J.D.Irving publicly announcing some three years ago that he, without  the need to get elected, was now a member of the government?

This is our aristocracy. And, like the old British aristocracy, it presumes the right to rule over us commoners - despite the evidence of their complete incompetence at anything except being born into the right family.

Incidentally, organizations close to the Irvings  - like AIMS - have been pushing hard to make changes in the education system. Might I ask what their training and experience in education is? I'm curious because I was at Acadia university just after the two,older brothers. They left without graduating; and I cannot find any record of their intellectual achievements.
As the world has always done, we are repeating past mistakes. Democracy is close to extinct. We have permitted the rise of an aristocracy of wealth which is proving, as the British aristocracy proved, to give not a damn for us, and utterly incompetent for anything except taking more for itself.

In the process, these people, whom Norbert calls our economic leaders, have shattered the world's economies to benefit themselves, have operated banks questionably and even illegally, have cornered all the world's wealth they can gobble while leaving millions in poverty and even starvation,  An Earl Haig, who commanded the British at the Somme cost Britain some 200,000 lives for his stupidity.  Our Earl Haigs murder by the millions.for their greed.

Since we're really a part of it, we might do some serious thinking about American Exceptionalism, and its great leap back into the dark ages.

There's not much in the TandT.

Norbert continues his harangues about how we (the commoners) have to pay for the budget debts so that our aristocracy, who created the debts,can walk away scot free. And, of course, he sneers at government bureaucrats. I have news for  you, Norbert. After ten years of recession in which the rich got richer and the poor poorer,  the Canadian economy was put under the control of bureaucrats. Under their control, Canada had the most reliable and successful economic system in the world. It's the return of control by big business that has us back in trouble.

Please, Norbert, learn a little bit about Canada before you start giving us all advice.

July 2 edition is mostly pictures.

There is news for both July 2 and 3 of turmoil around the world. Alas, the news, itself, is just a turmoil with little sense of why this is happening. Hint - much of the turmoil is caused by the wants of big business.. Almost all of the turmoil might properly be called societies in collapse.

And some t hings don't make it into the  Irving pres.
1. A year after 47 people were killed in Lac Megantic, nothing has been done. There are no plans for how to deal with a similar accident. No significant report on the police investigations. All we have is the whole blame being dumped on three, minor players.

2. They also missed the story of how Obama ordered the murder of an American citizen. The victim was in one of the world's trouble spots. He was suspected. Just suspected. Of doing - something. Obama had him killed. No trial. No charge. just killed.

It was contrary to both international law and the American constitution.

But it was faithful to American Exceptionalism.

3. There has been no reporting on the history of Ukraine - though it might explain a lot. Ukraine was a long history  of intense and brutal hatreds. It was a leader in the horrors of the slaughter of Jews. The Nazi party is still a force in Kiev's Ukraine, and in its government. It has a similar hatred of Russian speaking Ukrainians. That's why the fighting is so intense. Russian speakers fear being exterminated by the Kiev government. Indeed, Kiev encourages them to think that. It has announced that all property owned by Russian speakers who are killed or who flee to Russia will be confiscated by the government - then given to the government soldiers.

4. There is a report on the crisis between Israel and Palestine. But it's highly biased. There is no mention of the countless houses in Palestine broken into by Israeli soldiers, the beatings, the arbitrary shootings, the arrests and imprisonment of dozens of Palestinians on no charge and no evidence.

Netanyahu is quoted as calling Palestinians (just about all of them) terrorists. He should know. The founders of Israel were the ones who introduced terrorism to the middle east.

There's another story that the paper might pick up (I don't think) tomorrow. It's from today's Toronto Star.
Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto, called a press conference But it was in a tiny room with invited reporters only. And no questions were permitted.

In other words, this wasn't journalism at all. It was just free advertising for Ford. The Toronto Star accepted those terms. A Star columnist was furious. He pointed out that a journalist is not simply a stenographer to take down notes for free advertising for anybody. A journalist is an independent inquirer who questions, probes and digs for the whole, true story. It's an excellent column.

But I don't think you'll see it reported in the Irving press. It exists to avoid questions, to write what it's told to write, to churn out nothing but free advertising and trivia. And you certainly won't see one of their staff writers ever, ever criticizing that. It takes courage to write a column giving hell to the boss. The Irving press doesn't have an editor or staff columnist who has courage. Well, in fairness, some might. But they won't do it because they don't have the brains to know what real journalism is.

But then, the Irvings and their press are Exceptional.


  1. Excellent as usual Graeme.

    I wish I had you as a teacher many years ago. Would've cleared up a great many mysteries for me.

    One distinction to offer though it's not documented as yours is. Not that I know of, or would necessarily trust the source...

    I don't know if the indispensable and exceptional, neo-con's version of God is the same god we normally think of.

    It's very difficult to understand how a 'Christian' would seek to destroy others for monetary gain?

    Normally, one doesn't think of Christian theology as teaching how to kill and rob.

    What happened to the ten simple rules - the Ten Commandments?

    It's always been something I've had no luck in wrapping my head around – the gullibility of those who believe Christ wants them to be materially wealthy, especially at the expense of others.

    20 -30 years ago, I think neo-cons saw an opportunity to hijack American Christian fundamentalism in order to gather the votes they required in Congress, so as to further their warring, racist, and aggressive ways as you so eloquently described.

    But I wonder if we're not actually moving once again, back into another, darker chapter in world history.

    One that is finally beginning to become revealed to us as it's glimpsed from behind the partially opening doors of private, elite circles, and into a wider, public arena?

    I could be wrong about the following. As that 'mikel;' is always saying, 'where's your evidence?'

    It would feel good in this case to be wrong.

    I don't think displaying horned-hand salutes by Hollywood celebs, or by George Bush, or Hillary Clinton can be considered 'evidence'. I wouldn't consider it so.

    Maybe it's a CFR the case of Bush and Clinton. (Joking)

    However, as you already mentioned in the past I believe, many Nazi scientists came to America after WW2 during operation 'Paperclip'.

    Did the Nazi dream die, or did it simply live on, and evolve?

    And lets not forget to mention for other readers, Hitler was bankrolled by western bankers as well. Do your research.

    It's said, money is the root of all evil.

    Money, political power, and prestige passed down through several generations of immense banking families tends to beget eccentric constitutions to say the least.

    Why would it seem so strange then, to discover perhaps, there's something more to the devotion by post-neo-cons to another, stranger, older ideology?

    One thing I've noticed in growing instances, is the US government-sanctioned assault on anything 'Christian', or overly patriotic.

    In this advanced age of social-engineering, is the age of believing-in-nothing purposely being placed upon us?

    - so we can no longer distinguish the difference between moral imperatives?

    Is it preparing us to remain passive? Remain submissive?

    So we'll turn a blind eye to the crimes against humanity our western governments and corporations are engaged in?

    Or, is it preparing us for something else as well?

    Is there another, much more ancient practice at play, such as said to take place at the Bohemian Grove where a doll ( an effigy of a child) is thrown into the fire as a cleansing of associated guilt?

    'I do not see the evils you do brother'.

    Maybe, I'm reading too much into everything I see, and becoming overly philosophical...

    On the other hand, if I stumble across any serious documentation on the above, I'll let you know.

    1. Why would you need documentation for above? Do you need a document to tell you that it's cloudy out? We can see all that's happening. We know it and we ignore it.
      How do we know that balancing the budget by making the poor pay in lost services and incomes won't work? Easy. It was tried for ten years in the dirty thirties, and it didn't work. How do we know that letting the rich off to get even richer in hard times will not create jobs? We know it because it didn't work in the thirties.

      Read Canada, Royal Report on Price Spreads and Mass-Buying.(1935) - send a copy to Norbert.

      What is called austerity budgeting (cutting service) is austerity only for the poor. In the both the 30s and today, the rich get even richer, much richer, as the rest of us make sacrifices.

  2. Actually (if the writings of T.E. Lawrence are to be believed) it was the British who introduced terrorism to the Middle East as part of their war against the Ottomans.

    1. Terrorism has always been a weapon of war. The British did use it again the Ottomans. Then they and the French and Spanish used it against their African colonies.
      Zionists used it against the British and against Arabs.

      So far as I know, Arabs did not start using terrorism as an organized method of war until the last 60 years.

      However, I'm sure it was used, as all countries used it, in the years before significant European contact.

    2. We should be careful in using the world 'terrorism' because it can have varying meanings.

      For example, terrorism was used by my European peoples as an expression of hatred for Jews and other groups. But it was a matter of periodic outbreaks - usually with no long term objective.

      The crusaders happily terrorized Jews, slaughtering them whenever they saw any. But, again, it was killing without an long term object.

      And there's always been the terrorism of torture. But that, too, has a limited objective.

      Then there's the more organized terrorism to win a war. Examples of that are the US fire bombing of Tokyo, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All three deliberately targeted civilian populations.

      Terror became not just A tool of war, but THE tool of war.

      Similarly, Jewish terrorists the middle east just before the formation of Israel used terror not as A tool of war, but as The tool, using it to kill both Arabs and British.

  3. Terrorism has been part of the middle east long before the british, just as it was part of the discovery and conquest of North and South America, just like it was in virtually all the countries of the world throughout history, its certainly nothing 'new'.

    I agree about the religious fundamentalism, but there's a difference between what is preached and what is practised. The US is NOT a democracy. Polls almost virtually throughout the history of the United States have shown that US citizens are amongst the most peaceful and isolationist in the world. As for wealth, there is a long history of thought equating material wealth with being 'gifts from god'. If god likes you, he does nice things for you, that goes right through christianity, but lots of christians aren't particularly greeding, so most I know will talk about praying so their kid gets better or something like that. But its not a big leap to go from "if I pray god will like me and do this good thing for me" to "god did those good things for that person, so they must be good people". I'm DEFINITELY not saying thats accurate, but you can see how people can come to believe it.

    As far as religion goes, certainly the US government is one of the most 'fundamentalist' of governments in the world. I don't see evidence of them preaching agnosticism, but usually just the opposite. Like Mr. Decarie points out, the 'chosen people' narrative is a popular one, but is not exclusive to the US. If you asked them, they wouldn't say they are 'biblically chosen', what is often said is that "its the greatest country in the world", which is not exclusive to the US, ask a WHOLE lot of canadians and they will say the same thing. Heck, you'll find lots of NBers saying its 'the greatest place in the world' (usually people who haven't seen much of the world, or only bad parts). And lots of people will even say that their particular city is the best in the world, for no real reason apart from that they happen to like it.

    But the Hitler comment interested me, because for a LONG time I've looked for evidence that Hitler was bankrolled by western banks, but I've yet to find any. That IBM organized the genocide is something well known, but I've yet to see any evidence of this claim.

    And its worth noting that 'nazism' is not some weird German anomaly. Eugenics and 'getting rid of the unfit' is an old idea, and its modern beginnings are right here in Canada with the native population. Canadian 'thinkers' were talking about eugenics LONG before anybody had even heard of the Nazi party, and it was the canadian and US strain that was then 'marketed' to Great Britain, and from Great Britain it went onto the continent and found its way to Germany.

    There are NUMEROUS good books on that, and just type in 'canada' and 'eugenics' and you will find the above and FAR more information on the eugenics movement in Canada. Forced sterilization programs began as early as 1920 and lasted, well, some people argue that it never stopped.

    Just ask a native person and you'll find out just how pervasive 'terrorism', particularly state sponsored terrorism, really is.

    1. Hitler had the public support of big business in North America. Henry Ford was a notorious Jew-hater, operated an anti-Jewish newspaper, and gave millions to Hitler.The prime minister of Canada thought Hitler was saintly - like Joan of Arc. He had very wide support.

      Even after the war, Canada and the US made it hard for Jews to come here.

      Yes, there was a eugenics movement - and it had the taint of racism - but it was never thought of as a "terrorist" movement.

  4. Americans are the most peaceful and isolationist people in the world? Then how do you explain that they have been steadily at war for centuries? The modern US, all of it, is built on conquered land. The American southwest was taken by force from Mexico. Hawaii was taken by force. So were The Philipines. Just about every small country in South American has been invaded by the US so it could establish dictators. This is a country that is constantly at war - right now, at war with so many countries (unreported) that the number is unknown - Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan. It terror-bombed a Cuban, civilian airliner. It murdered 300,000 in Guatemala. It murdered way over a million in Iraq... It has a bigger military budget than all the rest of the world put together. That's some peace-loving and isolationist people.

  5. Look here at Kevin Annett's site:

    ... for his documented discoveries and exposure of authorities regarding Canadian Residential School mass graves of children.

    Look at who he alleges attempted to block further excavations.

    His is a site with many offerings, some of which will be very surprising and disconcerting to a few.

    I haven't the knowledge base yet to venture whether he's delusional on his other related interests, or if he's really onto something ...check his site carefully and you'll see what I mean.

    Look at Paul Craig Roberts.

    James Corbett of the CorbettReport also mentions in past articles the financing of Hitler.

    History books are written by the victors.

    For instance, see what Ernst Zundel says about so-called established researchers, and how they simply piggy-back off each other without ever having access to the original source witnesses or materials.

    It's a longer interview but revealing and worthwhile.

    And, is this a hoax? Or, which one is the real hoax?

    Revisit this well known episode of Donahue on the same question.

    The official 9/11 narrative is now part of public school history books. Does it make it correct?

  6. Americans are the most peaceful and isolationist people in the world?

    OK mikel. Now I know who you are. You just failed the test!

    Just what kind of medicated planet are you living on?

    The US Military Industrial Complex has proven itself to be the single, largest, terrorist organization in the world!

    And don't ask me to show you the evidence! It's in your face every day!

    It\s been frankly responsible for more deaths, and injuries delivered to more innocent people on this planet than any other organization ever has.

    Please avail yourself of information in the information age, and stop listening to mainstream propaganda, or what you may believe is legit alternative media!

    Learn the difference who's controlled opposition, (to fool you into believing you have a choice) and who isn't!!

    For instance, The Sun News Network is controlled opposition! All major newspapers will mix truths with 'omissions'.

    Anymore statements like that, and I'll begin to wonder if you're not being paid to be this naive.

  7. American citizens have NEVER 'voted' to go to war. They had to be dragged into both of the two World Wars. Go look at polls, what I'm talking about is CITIZENS, not governments ( I even WROTE that pretty clearly). Just like no canadians VOTED to go to the korean war or afghanistan war.

    But I said American BANKS, I didn't say Henry Ford, he didn't run a bank. His links have been long known, but if you don't think Canada's eugenics movement was 'terrorism', then you don't know many natives or any of the thousands of people who were affected, or the natives who 'disappeared'.

    During US history there is a long history of US pioneers and natives living in harmony. Pioneers had no problem 'sharing the land' because often it was natives who were doing the sharing, and helping them, even feeding them. The biggest genocides happened when the US formed its own military, again, thats GOVERNMENT, not the population.

    Americans certainly have more freedoms and more ways to access their government, but to assume they control their government is just crazy. Go look at polls and almost universally what you find is that they are directly opposite to what is official US policy. This goes right down the list on health care, foreign policy, you name it.

    So why you'd think I mean the US government when I said AMERICANS, is beyond me. Harper is pulling all kinds of &*^%, he was elected with barely 40% support of those who bother voting. The idea that CANADIANS are the same as 'the canadian government' is just absurd.

    And dude, I seriously hope you have better sources than Ernst Zundel, a guy who thinks there are space ships hidden in the antarctic and who was expelled from the country for hate speech. With sources like that I don't think you can really point at other people's 'medicated' condition, and I couldn't care less what you think of me or any dumb 'tests' you might think up.

    1. If Americans are isolationists, the why did they conquer so much of South America? Why do they operate a thousand or more military bases around the world?
      No doubt some were friendly with native peoples. But most weren't. there was a movement to kill ALL native peoples as late as the early twentieth century. When wars began with native peoples it was almost always because American citizens wanted their land.
      Americans cheered for the Spanish American war. They cheered for the Phillipines war.
      I don't see where you get all this isolationism and peace-loving from.
      Similarly, Canadians insisted on going to war in the Boer War and the two world wars. And Harper has pledged us to two wars (Ukraine and Israel), and I've yet to hear even a peep of objection. Similarly, there was little opposition to sending Canadians to the Afghanistan war which really had nothing to do with us.

  8. Again, you are talking about the GOVERNMENT. Without a referendum there is no way of knowing what the population wants. The "But most weren't" is not something you can prove. Settlers simply didn't have the MEANS to go to war with natives. Go look at a list of all native tribes and what happened to them, they weren't put on reservations because the local townsfolk put them there. There was and is PLENTY of land in the US, the US GOVERNMENT wanted the land, which in most cases would be handed over to the wealthiest donor, which is why you have family farms now with hundreds of thousands of acres. Its not the local townspeople that got it. Just like when Canada acts internationally, its always for the benefit of some mining or contracting corporation, not for OUR benefit.

    CANADIANS certainly never 'insisted' on going to the Boer War, in the first world war Canada didn't even have a choice, and we've been all over the second world war so I'm not going to repeat myself. Certainly there was english support, but not french, and we really have no idea what the numbers are.

    In Afghanistan there was tons of support for going there, but that doesn't mean you can "canadians demanded we go to Afghanistan" simply because there weren't even any polls done before the action was taken. Lots of newspapers and politicians made noises, but that means nothing about the 33 million canadians.

    As for the US, this has been all over polling data for decades. In my first quick search, just look at

    When asked whether the US should 'not think so internationally and focus on issues at home', 80% of americans agree, and its been over 50%, well, since they began polling in 1964. The number who disagree is about 16%.

    When asked whether the US should mind its own business COMPLETELY and leave all other countries alone, 52% of americans agree with that statement. The number that disagree has been falling steadily to now less than 40%.

    Thats NOT an anomoly, there are numerous polling firms who ask similar type questions and like I said, they all show similar data. There is a reason why the only way americans learn about foreign countries is when they invade them. Heck, they don't even know squat about Canada, and we are their biggest trading partner with the longest border.

  9. To be hip (using an old word for an outdated forms of hipness, you're uncool, dude. In fact, you're wrong.
    Boer War - PM Laurier didn't want to go to war. The big popular press like the Montreal Star, controlled by Canadian big business, wanted the war. They whipped up such enthusiasm with what was a heavily British-born population of the time that Laurier had no choice. The movement was weaker in the Atlantic region where the British connection was more distant. But it was decisive in the rest of Canada.

    Ditto for World War One. And in WW1, Canada did have a choice. We were, in the empire, technically at war when Britain was. But we were obliged to fight ONLY on Canadian territory. Sending troops over was purely voluntary.

    All you're using for information is polls of american thinking. Americans may not like going to war - but opposition to war is very, very rare. Perhaps the strongest example was Vietnam. More Generaly, and no matter what they tell pollsters, Anericans support wars once they're started.

    The US has over a thousand overseas military bases. And it was the biggest navy in the world. This is isolationist? It has conquered much of Latin America, and governs it through puppets. This is isolationist? It has been at war somewhere almost every year since 1776, This is peace-loving?

    Indian wars were often provoked by ordinary Americans - like gold and silver miners who trespassed on Indian land, provoked violence, then called for government help. The Mexican war was caused by a flood of ordinary Americans looking for land and looking for war to get it. Yes, there were big time land speculators and slave traders like Davey Crockett. But the American people, due to bad farming methods were forever land hungry.

    They were quite happy to kill native peoples to get their land.

    Ignorance of the rest of the world has nothing to do with it. They were ignorant of even where Korea was. they still went to war with enthusiasm.

    American history is not a history of love and peace. It's a history of aggression to steal resources and exploit cheap labour. Are you seriously suggesting that polls are enough to disprove that?

    If Americans were as peaceful and isolationist as those polls show, there would have been a second revolution soon after 1776.

    Incidentally, t he average Englishman knew squat about India and China and Malaya. That never affected their enthusiasm for Empire, either.

  10. Laurier he may have said any number of things, but politicians are professional liars, he probably couldn't care less and was operating from political decisions. From what I read, while english papers were keen for war, Laurier allowed canadian 'volunteers', of which, 7,368 served in the Boer War.

    So essentially 7368 canadians 'supported' war enough to actually do anything about it. Hardly a huge number.

    That the PRESS wants war is a given. The Fox Network pretty much wants perpetual war, the PRESS has ALWAYS wanted war, and makes it sound like the population supports it, when in fact very very few americans actually ever even watch Fox.

    Its incorrect to say that "if the US were isolationist then there would be a second revolution". Its a HUGE leap to think that somebody who opposes their government's aggression overseas is going to actually start or take part in a revolution to overthrow their own government because of it. The canadian government is partly, even mostly, responsible for the overthrow of the Haitian government, and is responsible for much of what has occurred since. I think that's horrible, and I think Canada should get out of there, but the idea that I am going to start or take part in a revolution to overthrow the government of Canada because of that is ludicrous.

    There WERE protests against the Iraq war LONG before the actual invasion took place, and those protests were a lot bigger than even the Vietnam protests, which never started until long after the war began. But like with shale gas, the reality is that people simply have no power over their government, even protest accomplishes very little, so people tend to simply live with their objections. If Canada said it was going to war tomorrow in Ukraine, there is virtually nothing we can do. And I don't know about you, but even though I wouldn't like it, I'm not going to try to overthrow the government, even if it were justified.

    Gold and silver miners were NOT 'average americans'. The idea that some prospector walked to a creek and discovered gold and then called in the military to kill the indians is laughable. It also misses the point, that they 'called for government help'. If you think the US government, or ANY government acts in specific ways because some citizen asked them too, well, thats not even a point I'm going to argue.

    In short, I made my point and referenced the poll which backs it up. You can go to any similar poll and find the exact same thing. There was an excellent book written on those types of polls, I'll try to find it, but short of that, just go look at any large polling company. Or just believe what you want. That the government and media want war is something else entirely, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about regular citizens, and obviously they are not all the same, but like I said, the majority agreed with that point I made.

    And thats not even taking into account the effect of media. If the media LIES to a population and makes them think there is a threat, then thats different. But even in that case, only 31% of americans supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. And thats even though the government lied through its teeth and the media basically sold the war for them.

    When a population feels threatened, then polls certainly change. Americans probably would have gone to war with ANYBODY after 9/11 if there were any kind of link. Only 30% of americans now think the war in Afghanistan was 'worth it'.

    Historically, well, I urge readers to go out and look up ANY native american tribe to see what happened to them, and I guarantee you won't find they were rousted or eliminated by pioneers or settlers. They simply didn't have the weapons or numbers-or, as I argue, the desire.

  11. You serious problems with logic, and the use of evidence.
    Polls, for example, are evidence. Yes. But they are not proof. There is a difference.

    Then you will simply invent evidence. - as when you say all politicians are liars. Therefore, laurier was lying when he said he opposed the war years. Nonsense.
    I have known many politicians who were not liars. As for laurier, he had good reason for opposing participation in the Boer War. There was every possiblity it could cost him the Quebec vote if he supported the war. And Quebec was the anchor of his liberal party.

    As to native peoples in the US, yes they were usually killed by soldiers. So? All t he evidence I have ever seen is that Americans wanted the soldiers to do that.

    And you can't write off miners on he ground they were not really typical Americans. Miners were not a foreign race. They were born by the usual methods, and felt the same way as other people. Miners, farmers, ranchers wanted land. And they wanted native peoples off it.

    nor can you write off media influence. Of course there are influences working on people. All kinds of them. Saying that the media lied to Americans to get them to support war in Iraq is irrelevant to the point we were discussing. Americans DID support the Iraq war. Whether that was caused by media or by too much gas in there bottles of pop doesn't matter.
    In any case, there were no powerful news media until the 1890s, and the US fought a hell of a lot of wars before that.
    In 1812, Americans were split on invading Canada with the Atlantic states opposed and the more western states (heavily agricultural) in favour. That was was purely about land - and was the average American, the farmer, who wanted that land because their farming methods destroyed the soil within twenty years. That's why they invaded Canada. And that's why they slaughtered the native peoples. yes, wealthy land dealers were a factor. But they had full support.

    How many Canadians went to fight in the Boer War doesn't matter. They fact is they were supported and celebrated as heros in much of the "average Canadian" population.

    In World War One as in the Boer War, Canada was technically at war but did not HAVE to send troops. But it did because popular sentiment demanded it - as did the government.

    But Germany in 1914 was no threat to North America. That's why the US stayed out. In Canada, popular sentiment favoured war. In the US, that popular sentiment had to be manufactured by the press,it's true. Nonetheless, Americans DID go to war enthusiastically in 1917 - though Germany was still no threat to the US.
    Look, the US have been fighting wars without much of a break for some 250 years. It now spends more than all the rest of the world on weapons. It has bases by the thousand all over the world.
    To say, on the basis of polls, that Americans are isolationist and peace-loving is absurd.
    Either that or - what the polls show is that Americans are amazingly easily duped century after century.
    please learn the difference between evidence and proof.

  12. Proof: argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition

    ONE poll is 'evidence', however, HUNDREDS of polls is something else. Like I said, go to any one of the numerous polling companies in the US, you'll find the same thing. I showed one with a five second search, its easy to find others.

    Whether all that evidence constitutes a 'proof' is up to the reader. Obviously this isn't mathematics. All you have to do though is look at the crime rate. The number of people who DON"T commit violent crime in the US vastly outweigh those who do.

    However, you are still making that same mistake, assuming americans control their government, THAT is absurd. At the federal level, where most of the aggression now occurs, americans have less choice than canadians. They have the choice between two parties, one who would go to war with anybody for almost any reason, and one that only needs a little bit of a reason.

    Its true that media has to drumbeat wars in a democracy, there MAY be a revolution if the government just one day said "we're invading reason, we just are". There is certainly a reason why media goes on the warpath months, even years before these things occur. But to say that when the US engages in aggression they do so after some sort of referendum or public vote of confidence, now, THAT seems absurd.

    Its true that media has an effect, but we don't know how much. For example, americans re elected George Bush against John Kerry. However, its important to remember that like Canada, only about half of americans bother voting. And Kerry came out strong to cast himself as being 'just as aggressive as Bush'. Some say that was a mistake and had he talked about bringing troops back home then he would have won. However, the 'powers that be' in the US make sure that in the US, and increasingly in Canada, policies that people care about are never discussed.

  13. As for politicians, I said politicians are known liars, that DOESN"T mean that all politicians are liars, or that politicians are lying all the time. What I meant was what you said, that Laurier was concerned about votes-not that he was concerned about the well being of canadians.

    As for US natives, I've never seen ANY evidence of what you say, or even how such evidence would be gathered. Are you saying that in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century you have seen polls that asked americans how they felt about what the government was doing? Heck, americans virtually NEVER approve of what their federal government is doing even today. If you have some evidence of that, I'd like to see it.

    The 'lone miner' is a myth, the reality is closer to what you see in movies. But your argument is like saying that the new forestry deal in New Brunswick was written in order to help individual foresters, NOT Irving. Its when monied interests want something done that government acts, not citizens.

    But my point is not irrelevant, IF a person is lied to and believes that somebody is about to break into his house and kill him, and he arms himself and his wife comes home and he shoots her, that doesn't mean that he is not usually passive or peaceful. ANY person will act in self defence, thats why the US, and even Canada, have media that attempt to make sure that people are scared all the time.

    Back to Canada, there is no doubt that you can rile up a population virtually any time you talk about war, thats what propaganda is for. It was no different in Canada than the US. Are you saying that for some reason canadians, who didn't even have a clue what europeans were even fighting about, just suddenly jumped up? Actually, its an interesting comment because you talk about US propaganda, which means that by your own logic CANADIANS were more warlike than AMERICANS. That's interesting.

    That's what propaganda does, in Canada and in the US and every country of the world. When you LIE to people and make them think they MUST act, then thats something completely different. Which is why there was even more opposition to the Iraq war than Vietnam, because there was all kinds of independant media showing that the reasons were all lies. Remember the famous "we must act before there is a mushroom cloud over Seattle" that Condoleeza Rice was peddling? When people are SCARED, they will support anything. But actually much of your comment is wrong, as polls showed that in most cases americans DID NOT support the war in Iraq, and the only reason most of those people did was because they believed the lies that were told to them. So again, thats self defense, not aggression. Just type in iraq war and polls and read them for yourselves.

  14. There you go again. You (deliberately?) misunderstand what I said - and claim it agrees with what you said. I never suggested Laurier was a liar. I never said he wasn't concerned about what was good for Canadians.

    He opposed participation in the Boer War because he saw the implications in it. Britain wanted a precedent for the wars to come. As it's own power faded, it wanted to use the empire as its gang - much as the US is now trying to use NATO.

    Only a small proportion of Americans are criminal and violent? Then how do you explain that it has the biggest prison population in the world? Far the biggest. And with more criminals in than out of prison.
    In polls Americans declare themselves isolationist? What would you expect them to say? ."I'm a very violent person with an enthusiasm for murder and I want to kill people all over the world."

    Against those polls, you have almost continuous, aggressive wars for some 250 years. That's evidence, too.

    I have no idea where you got the fairy tale that ordinary people did not kill native peoples in the US. Land was a powerful, driving force. They invaded CAnada and killed Canadians to get land. So what makes you think they were all sweetness with native peoples?

    Oh, they also fought a civil war against each other, a war fought with almost unheard of brutality and killing., a war which bred hatreds that are still alive today.

    Live by the polls if it makes you happy. The reality is that the US from the start has been warlike and aggressive, starting with the territory it stole from native peoples, to the Lain America, then to overseas conquest.

    And, yes, Canada did jump up to fight European wars when they didn't know what those wars were about. Canadians volunteered massively and immediately for World War One, when they hadn't a clue what it was about. Most still don't. And propaganda had nothing to do with it because the volunteers were there before there was time to get out the propaganda.

    And I'll bet if you found a poll for that period, you would find Canadians saying they were peace-loving and even isolationist.

    And there was more opposition to the Iraq war than to Vietnam? Gee! I must have missed the whole anti-Iraq war movement.

  15. Thats funny. You actually misunderstood me in the claim of misunderstanding. I didn't say Laurier was lying, I agreed with you, that he had political motivations, so any claim that he was concerned with canadians seems untrue.

    But believe what you want, if you don't think there was propaganda for the war effort in Canada there is really nothing that can be said about that except that sounds like garbage. I went to the warmuseum website and there was tons of stuff on war with the 'hun'. But what it shows is that canadians are as violent as americans.

    As for prisons, the VAST majority of people in US prisons are there for drug infractions, NOT violence.

    But like I said, you have 250 years of GOVERNMENT violence, not citizen violence.

  16. Wow, you sure did. There were massive WORLDWIDE anti Iraq protests. I don't know how you COULD miss it. Go to the library of check media sources online, it was so huge that even mainstream media couldn't ignore it.

    This is from the wikipedia entry on Iraq war protests:

    "Beginning in 2002, and continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, large-scale protests against the Iraq War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.[2]"

    In the US, as early as 2007 more americans believed the war was a mistake than supported it. It didn't last as long as the Vietnam war, partly because there was no conscription and the US was increasingly using hired mercenaries and even immigrants who were promised a green card (and lousy healthcare afterwards).

    But again, there is evidence of GOVERNMENT aggression, NOT civilian. While the US has more violent statistics than most european countries, its pretty much on par with places like Brazil, China and Russia.

    And even with a higher homicide rate, like I say, the vast vast majority of americans DON"T commit violent crimes.