Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Feb. 11: It's insane

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-three-young-muslims-gunned-down-in-north-carolina-at-their-family-home-10037734.html?utm_source=indynewsletter&utm_medium=email11022015

Take a look at the site above. Look at those young people who were murdered. They're Muslims. You can tell from the evil you see in their faces, can't you?

Who murdered them? Forget the lout (who isn't a Muslim) with the gun. Ask what made the lout with that gun. It was our  news media and our politicians with their endless creation of  hatred and fear. That's what made him. Editors and prime ministers and presidents are the real killers, and they work at it every day, spinning out nothing but hatred and fear.

As it happens, I recently got a widely circulated hate letter going the rounds on the web. The claim is it was based on information from a German pyschiatrist who lived through Hitler's Germany. Maybe you'll be getting a copy sent on to you from whoever your favourite hate-letter circulator is. He claims Hitler came to power only because the German people were passive and let him take power.

And that's utter rubbish. Take a look at the Nazi rallies on youtube. Take a look at how those "passive" naziis fought down to the to the last possible end, right in Berlin. Anyway, the letter goes on to make parallels between Muslims and Naziis. That letter is designed to make us hate and fear Muslims. - as though we don't get enough propaganda on our news media. If anybody is going to jail for these killings, it should be most of the journalists in the western world.

Today, I noticed what is routine in the paper. A sentence about the Ukraine crisis mentions that Russia caused it. In fact, who caused it had nothing to do with the story - never mind that the much stronger evidence is that the US caused it. It's like those stories about how  horrible it is to burn people alive without mentioning that we've been doing to huge numbers, including children and even babies, for years.

But will the Irving press every talk about our use of napalm and phosphorous shells? Not bloody likely.
______________________________________________________________________________
In another story that won't likely make the Irving press, the American government has just cut off bank transfers to one of the poorest countries in the world - though it continues to allow bank transfer of funds in the billions of dollars to international drug lords, and (also illegally)  to agitators against Latin American governments the US doesn't like.

The story is in a British paper, The Guardian, one of the few remaining western news sources of intelligence and honesty.  (No. The irving press doesn't make make the top thousand.) The story is in the edition for Nov. 11, and the headline is Unremitting Pain.

People in Somalia are not just poor. They are starving to death. Help reaches them from relatives in other countries who have jobs. It also comes from volunteer groups and, sometimes, from governments - as the British government has done. It's sent through the international banking system.

But no more.

The US says some of it could reach rebels. Well, yes. Some of it, as everywhere in the world, could reach rebels. And all over the world, there is no shortage of rebels, including ISIS, fighting with US money and US weapons. But n the case of Somalia, the evidence is that only a few thousand dollars have reached the rebels.  So, to prevent the transfer of a sum that wouldn't pay for a cup of coffee all around, the US government is going to allow thousands of the poorest people in the world to starve to death.

However, while they're dying, they will continue to enjoy daily terror raids by US drones - which almost certainly kill more innocent people that rebels.

So how come drug lords and terrorists for our side are allowed to get billions of dollars? The official answer, seriously, was that cutting off transfers to those people would endanger too many jobs.
________________________________________________________________________
I was rather surprised at all the attention paid to the resignation of external affairs minister Baird. What's the big deal? It couldn't matter less who the minister is. We don't have any external affairs policies to worry about.

Until the 1930s, we left external affairs to Britain. We even sent Canadians to get killed in the Boer War so very rich Brits could loot the gold mines of South Africa. Then we got the right to declare war on our own.
But the only time we have really made any such decision on our own was in 1939. Now, we make war in Iraq without even pretending it requires debates and votes.

Since then, I can think of only one occasion when Canada made even an attempt to have its own foreign policy. That was in Pearson's time with  his development of peacekeeping. Nothing since.

The reality, for many countries, is that they have to follow the foreign policies of big countries - or pay a price. In the dying days of empire, Churchill crawled to Roosevelt for help. He had no choice. He knew that Britain's great days were over. And he knew that the price for help would be handing British foreign policy to the US.

He defied the US only once. In 1945, when France wanted to retake its colony of French Indo-China  (Vietnam), Roosevelt warned it not to because it was the American intention to take over all the western colonies in Asia for itself. France had only a very small fleet in the Pacific. But it defied the US by sending a destroyer to accept the "liberation" of French Indo-China. The US was informed. It promptly bombed the French destroyer.

Then, Churchill was ordered not to liberate its colony of Hong Kong. Roosevelt wanted Hong Kong for the US, too.  But Churchill desperately needed Hong Kong for British business, and Churchill undeniably had courage, and he had a large fleet of big ships in the region. So he sent them to Hong Kong, and he got away with it.

But that was the last time Britain had its own foreign policy.

Egypt, parts of South America, Iran are now playing with fire in forming relationships with Russia.

But Britain and Canada have learned their lesson. They do what they're told. When Canada was told to send peacekeepers to Haiti, it saluted and said, "Ready, sir, ready." The Canadian government knew well it was not going to Haiti to maintain the peace. They knew it was going to help the US in closing down Haitian democracy, and putting an American puppet in power.

The Canadian presence in Somalia is there because Baird and Harper were told to zip up and get busy. That's why we were in Afghanistan. That's why Britain was in Iraq.

Yes, Baird made me really proud to be a Canadian.
___________________________________________________________________________
But the news isn't all bad. So here's story to make you happy.

The average compensation for Canada's top hundred CEOs in 2013 was  $9,213,416.00.

From 2008-2013, their wages went up 25%.  Your increase was, on average, 12% for the same period.

And, as a sort of bonus, the taxes of the very rich were eased

Are you a minimum wage worker? Well, one thing you don't have to guess about any more. Your CEO makes more by 1.47pm than you make in a whole year. So, you want to balance the New Brunswick budget? Very simple. Make the very rich pay taxes at a decent rate.

Oh, I know,  I know. CEOs work awful hard. So do firemen. But we don't pay many firemen over nine million a year.  Our military not only work hard; they run a  high risk of getting killed or wounded, and an even higher risk of severe mental illness. But they don't get nine million a year. In fact, they don't even get the medical and financial help the government is supposed to give them.

Don't worry about the very rich. They could get a lot less than nine million. There are more difficult jobs than being a CEO, jobs in the military, jobs in factories, jobs in hospitals, jobs in education. Don't worry. We could cut those salaries in half and more, and still get lots of candidates.

As for needing their leadership - no. We don't. They are not leaders for a provincial or national budget. They controlled budgets in the 1920s. That's why we had a depression in the 1930s. (And they still got richer while the rest of us got hungry.) They took control again in the 60s, and drove us into this recession (in which they are still getting richer.

Where will this take us? Just use common sense. We have an economic system that makes a small number of people obscenely rich.. There is only one possible outcome for that. They will have everything, and we will have nothing.  But won't that hurt the rich as their markets can't buy from them any more? Yes.In fact, it will destroy the whole system. But I said they were rich. I didn't say they were smart.


Forgot Gallant's babble about how we all have to  make sacrifices. 1.As things are, we don't ALL have to make sacrifices. The rich don't  And they certainly won't.. 2. Making the rest of us poorer and more miserable will not bring prosperity back. It never has. It never will.

The very rich are very rich BECAUSE the rest of us are getting poorer.

So how do the rich get our minds off this obvious truth. Easy. They own news media to tell us the cause of all our problems in Muslims and Russians. Hate. Hate Fear. Kill them all. They're evil.

After all, it worked for Hitler using the Jews.




No comments:

Post a Comment