Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Nov.10: Let's not waste time on the Irving press today.

There's no news in Section A.

The editorial gushes about our fishery's future under the Trans-Pacific trade deal, nicely ignoring some realities. 1. There are severe limits to the fishery, with much of it already under strain - or worse. 2. Under that same trade deal, there is every possiblity that Canadians will not long own our fishery. 3. The trade deal will also make it impossible to impose restrictions to save a dying fishery.

What this editorial really tells us is that Mr. Irving supports the Trans-Pacific deal.

Norbert is well worth reading.

Alan Cochrane gives us a history of Canada as a "...peaceful nation that has historically stepped up to protect others in times of trouble, but also refused to be dragged into wars that didn't fit our national policy."

He should have signed it BS.

Who were we protecting when we fought aboriginal peoples and Metis?  What did the Boer War do to protect anybody? And what did it have to do with Canada's 'National policy'? What was and/or is Canada's national policy?  

The Korean War was NOT fought to protect  anybody. It  was essentially a U.S. war to prevent North Korea from getting in the way of American imperial expansion. If it made sense to fight in Korea, then it should have made sense to fight a very similar war in Vietnam. (or, we could have joined with the Vietnamese to protect them against the U.S.)

Pearson's peacekeeping certainly deserves full marks. But we effectively abandoned it long ago to become an American poodle.

And what on earth did Afghanistan or Syria or Libya have to do with protecting anybody or any national policy? Does the columnist seriously think the U.S. was there to protect  Afghanis?

We do, indeed, need to remember. That is what Remembrance Day should be about. It should be about the horror of war, not the glorification of it. And it most certainly should not be about bad history.

There's mention of Vimy Ridge in the column. All of it, The stone memorial, the hill itself, the tunnels through it, the command it gave of the enemy lines is the most impressive war memorial I have ever seen. It was a battle won by the finest military leader Canada ever produced, Sir Arthur Currie. But few Canadians have ever heard of him. Funny how we substitute myths for real history.
Almost all of Canada&World is irrelevant and a model case of really bad editing. But one story stands out as real news. It's on  B1, "Troubled veterans treated as threats as feds ignore inquest recommendations."
Now let's turn to some real news the Irving press didn't carry.

Read the two sites below. Both were went to me by a reader. Both come from eminently honest and intelligent sources.



I always feared that Stephen Harper's policies would lead to the destruction of Canada. So I heaved a great sigh of relief when he was defeated. But that may have been premature.

The implications of the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic deals are immense. In effect, they re-create the old, European rule by an aristocracy - of whom few will even be Canadians. It's a sell-out of nations, a sell-out of democracy, and a certain producer of more and worse wars and of domestic violence in many countries - including Canada and the U.S.

It's a deal created by the very wealthy to benefit themselves at the expense of the world. I have for a long time wondered about the sanity of Stephen Harper (quite seriously). Now, I have to wonder about the intelligence and integrity of the Peter MacKays who followed him.

It makes U.S. capitalists the dominant figures in the world economy. In effect, Canada becomes a full colony of the American empire. And we will be called upon to make war on Russia and China (you know, because they're evil or something like that. Think of that on Nov. 11.)

Will you and I gain anything by it? No. Corporations don't exist to give out money. They exist to take it. In fact, these treaties will almost certainly lead to the destruction of social programmes, and even of public education. And, no, that's not an exaggeration. The same corporations have already done that in places like Congo, Central America, and even the U.S.

It creates a world in which the needs of people mean nothing at all, a world we shall have no power to change, a world in which an elected government is just decorative.... Will the Irvings support it? Probably. They're pretty small potatoes on a world scale, so they need to hang out with the big spuds. I note that the Irving press has made little attempt to discuss it.  (Just one column by Norbert, and that one favourable. And, of course, today's editorial).

As for the violence, it's already begun. American society has been seeing vast fissures opening, and just about everybody is armed. And American police are now being  trained and equipped militarily to fight those who don't stand in line.
(And, as we saw at Rexton, it's also happening to our RCMP.)

And the middle east is just a foretaste of what's to come as major capitalists (sorry, entrepreneurs) take over our countries and then, the world.

Will the Liberals reject it? I doubt that very much. Since 1867, the Liberals have essentially been a party of big business. The founder of the party, George Brown, built the party to represent the interest of big business (for the time) in Ontario. John A. was the go-boy for Montreal business. The Liberals might make a show of minor re-bargaining of some sections. But I think it most unlikely they will reject it.

We are about to hand over all real power to the least caring, the most ruthless, the most short-sighted, the greediest, the most arrogant people on the face of this planet.

It will be interesting to see how the sermonette in Satuday's paper will manage to avoid talking about this proposal which is as anti-Christian and anti-any religion or morality as you can get.

As for the violence, I don't advocate it at all. Not anywhere. But it's going to happen because this deal, ultimately, leaves no choice.

But their won't be violence in New Brunswick. If people here get mad at the Liberals for passing this, New Brunswickers will show them. They'll vote Conservative next time.

Another story sent by a reader, and worth reading, is the one below from the New York Times.


Actually, it's happening in Canada, too.

 In a story a couple of days old, premier Gallant told CBC News that climate change 'conversations' with the public will begin once the building of the Energy East Pipeline has started.  Oh ????????

We'll have 'conversations' but not until we are committed to a major issue that is central to the issues of environment and climate change? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

But don't worry about it. If the Liberals pull this stunt on us, we'll make them pay for it. We'll vote for the Conservatives.

Time to tidy up on my series on the rise of capitalism.

For over two hundred years, the wealth of capitalists has made them major players in national decision making. The old aristocracy, mostly lacking the really big money retained some political power and status. It still does. But it's big money that dominates  governments. And it's big money that deliberately modelled itself on the airs and arrogance of the fading aristocracy. It is not only a class. It is a class that sees itself as real government, just like the old aristocracy - and it often is.

It's a great arrangement for capitalists. They get wars which create profits for the 'right' sort of people. That's what the British and French empires were about. That's what the American empire is about. Governments are told when to declare war and against whom.

And they don't have to pay for their wars. We taxpayers cover it. And they don't have to die in their wars. We do that. World War One was a war between groups of capitalists. That, not the killing of an archduke, was what the war was about. The Germans, of course, were evil. But they ceased to be evil when they were a barrier against communism, and defenders of the aryan 'race',   something which Churchill and others admired. But Germans became evil again when their industry became a serious competitor to British industry. (However, they didn't become evil in the U.S. until the end of 1942.

We killed over a million Iraqis because Saddam Hussein was bad. Then we hanged him. We know now that George Bush and Tony Blair lied in order to stage that war. So how come we haven't tried and hanged them? The Saudi rulers are as brutal and muderous and dictatorial as they come. So how come we're such good friends?

The twentieth century opened with the Boer War that was fought for money, nothing else. Every war I can think of since then was fought for money - including the 'peackeeping'  Canadian role in Haiti. Even the 'peacekeeping' in Congo was to protect the investments of western businessmen who have been pillaging that country for almost a hundred and fifty years.

And now, we have the last touch in the shape of "trade agreements".


No comments:

Post a Comment