Sept. 30: connecting the dots.

It started with news story I read about Harper's decision to build a multimilliondollar monument in Ottawa to victims of communism. It would be aimed, in particular, at Chinese and Russian victims. Well, okay. All victims deserve to be remembered. And Mao Zedong and Stalin certainly had a lot of victims.

Then I watched an old movie - “55 Days at Peking”. It's set in China of just over a century ago when there was a Chinese rebelliion against western capitalists who dominated the port cities of eastern China to control the nation's trade. Over the years, western armies had pretty much destroyed any organized government in China, killing a great many Chinese in the process. And the western capitalists had exploited the Chinese people by, among other things, letting them, in the millions, starve to death in the frequent national breakdowns caused by the destruction of government, and by the brutal terms the western capitalists had set on trade. After all, rebellions don't start without a reason.

The western powers also developed a new type of ship, the China gunboat, so that their navies could control the rivers of China – and 'discipline' any Chinese who seemed unhappy with the terms of trade.

But none of this showed in the movie. A leading star, David Niven, played the part of a British official in Peking. He was a nice man. The Chinese rebels weren't nice. They made faces at him. They shot at him.

Films play an important part in deciding how we see history – and how we see today's world.

 So Harper points to Mao's killings when he got control of China. (I've seen figures as high as 30 million or more – but nobody has a figure even in the ballpark.) So we will have a monument to victims of communism in China. (And we'll just forget that China has actually never been communist.)

Now, Mao certainly killed people. That happens when you fight a revolution. George Washington killed people. Mao also killed a lot of Japanese who invaded China in the Second World War, Japanese indiscriminately killed enemy soldiers, women babies with an extraordinary brutality. (for a sample, go to Google images of the rape of Nanjing – or Nanking).

Or you might want to check out the murderous career of Chiang Kai-Shek who killed Chinese by the millions with enthusiastic support from U.S. capitalists. (The Japanese invaders, by the way, were in China to serve the interests of Chinese capitalists.)

And, by the way, many, perhaps most, of Mao's victims were not deliberate victims. They were victims of a very bad agricultural programme that Mao attempted.

But, yes, there are victims of what we call communism. And we should remember them. But what do we do about the many, many more victims of capitalism. For a start, there was the murder of tens of millions of native peoples in the Americas. There was the British Empire in Africa, Asia, America. There were the empires of France and Spain and Portugal. There was even tiny Belgium which killed millions by murder, by torture, by starvation in the Congo. And we're still doing it.

Put those all together, and even Stalin and Mao are small time.

So why aren't we building a memorial to victims of communism and capitalism?

We won't, of course. And it is likely impossible to convince most people of how evil and murderous we have been. We have been brainwashed by media that propagandize. And it's reinforced by movies which give us a view of history that never happened. And that makes us easy pickings for the Harpers of this world.

By the way, ever notice that capitalists don't like to call themselves capitalists? No. Read the Irving press. It prefers the word 'entrepreneurs'. So much more----genteel.

I was sent a quite stunning story by a reader. I'm not familiar with the source. But it makes sense as I connect it with events that I know happened.

The story is densely written – which can make it a hard read. But it's logical, and it fits in with other information I have seen.

The U.S. intervention in the Middle East has been a disaster, particularly from the decision to invade Iraq. This (and this is no secret} was planned by The Project for the New American Century. It's in Google. This was planned in the 1990s by people representing leading American capitalists, including the oil industry. One of the participant was Jeb Bush. It's a plan for world conquest and American control of all the world's economies. It also gave rise to a belief that anyone who becomes president must have – that the US, and only the US, has American exceptionalism – the right to ignore all law and to do whatever the U.S. (meaning American billionaires) want to do. That's why Obama, with a straight face can tell Russia it's not allowed to intervene in Syria. - But the U.S. is allowed to.

That's why the U.S. has military bases numbering something like a thousand all over the world. That's why it has 'special ops'  hired killers. That's why it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why it overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. That's why is created organizations like al Quaeda and ISIS to overthrow Iraq. But several things have gone wrong.

1. The U.S. military has not been able to secure a clear win over any of those. In particular, the tenacity of ISIS in continuing to fight means the U.S. has bogged down. A win is not even in sight.

2. Bogged down as it is, the U.S. have been unable to carry out two wars it badly wanted – with Russia and China.

3. Worse. Both Russia and China have called America's bluff, and are looking for a permanent presence in the Middle East.

4. A century of western interference and killing and exploitation is causing a general breakdown in the region. Nations artificially created by western conquerors are fall apart. And some are looking elsewhere for an ally and for markets.

In short, we may be looking at a major step in the collapse of the American Empire.

The site below explains it more fully.

http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according...

Then there's the news the Irving press missed.

From CBC for Sept. 29

1. Canadian and American military leaders are discussing the integration of Canadian and American forces. That should scare the wits out of Canadians. Think. If there is integration, even on a small scale, that means we shall have to join in those wars the U.S. wants us to fight. Once an integration is achieved, it involves standardizing training, equipment, all based on an agreement that our part will be there when asked for. Integration is not like an alliance. An integration means a commitment. It means we surrender our right to decide who we will fight, and when we will go to war.  Nor is it likely this means Canada could call on such an integrated force for its own needs. We shall become simply a fully subordinate colony to the U.S. - even more subordinate than we ever were to the British Empire.

Forget parliament. Forget those Nov. 11 speeches about how our sacrifices in WW1 gave us the right to declare war on our own. We will fight wars when the U.S. wants us to. And it will choose the enemy.

I don't understand how a newspaper could miss a story so fundamentally affecting the independence of Canada.

And if these discussions are happening, it's a sure thing Harper has approved them. Military chiefs don't decide on the futures of nations without the approval of the boss – especially a micro-boss like Harper.

2. Also on yesterday's CBC news, Harper has been claiming that carbon dioxide emissions have been going down in Canada. That's not true. There was some time ago, a drop due to a lagging economy. But it was an insignificant 2% over 7 years. And since then it's been going up.

And there's another story – this one several years old but that I hadn't know about. To see the story, google The Harper Government. It seems that Harper confuses the role of elected PM with that of a monarch. Apparently, he ordered all civil servants in speech and in writing not to call our government The Government of Canada – the term which has served us for almost a hundred and fifty years. No. It must be called The Harper Government.

Along with his micro-management and his contempt for democracy, this suggests a man who needs to see a very good psychiatrist. And, no. I'm not exaggerating.

And, as you might have guessed, there isn't much in the Irving press. The front page banner headline is “New Brunswick has the largest proportion of seniors in country”. It's true, of course. But that's been common knowledge for a long time. It's like a headline to announce “Tomorrow will be dark until sunrise”.

A6 has the hot story that the Touch-a-Truck fundraiser was a big success. - which is also the story they had yesterday.

The editorial writer is still incapable of writing about anything of significance or anything that is not about money. This time it's a cry to have more lobster festivals.

Norbert attacks teachers and civil servants who take sick days off at full pay. Right on, baby. Now, Norbie, write the clincher on how Mr. Irving sets an example for us all. Tell us how, if he misses a day, he refuses to accept his million dollars for that day.

Cormier writes about his personal relationships with moose. (You don't want to go there.)

The guest column is about how we should spend more on daycare. Okay. But his whole argument is based on evidence which, as the columnist says, doesn't really prove anything. Where do the editors find these people?

Alec Bruce is good, and the only one worth reading.

The first page headline of Canada&World is a disgrace. “Extramarital affair highlighted at Oland trial.”

First, this is not a big story about Canada and the World. And highlighting this sordid story every damn day is cheap sensationalism. And to do it just to tell us Oland had an affair with somebody is really gutter snsationalism.

The bottom of the page has a more useful follow-up to earlier stories about prison deaths.

Then there's “Fighting Islamic State will take time: Obama”. Think about that. The most powerful country in the world with far the biggest military budget in the world is having trouble defeating a relatively small number of amateur soldiers.

He also says this a fight against the ideology of terror. Please. The biggest terrorist in the world, by far, is the United States. War has always been about terror. And for the last 60 years or more the U.S. has carried its terror to new heights.

There is one, important story they got. Yesterday, I said Saudi bombers (dropping U.S. bombs) killed some 35 people at a wedding in Yemen. That figure has been revised. It's now 136 dead, 80 of them women. (Hey! We gotta protect this world against terrorists.)

______________________________________________________________________

a footnote - I should have mentioned for yesterday's blog that section C of the paper had an excellent column on taking tough courses in school. Alas! I don't have that paper any more, and I can't remember the name of the columnist. But she's good.