Wednesday, June 15, 2016

June 15: This is long....

...maybe I need to find a life.

The headline, the big story, in today's irving press is that the library and the Moncton High School preservation group don't agree on moving the library.
Gee! Who would have guessed?

The real headline story is at the bottom of the last page of a very slim Canada&World section. "NATO ministers agree to deploy 4 battalions to defend eastern flank". No big deal? Well, that's because you have to read it almost halfway through   to find out that Canada is discussing being a major partner in this.

No  doubt we will have to adopt the F-35 fighter, the most expensive fighter aircraft in history, for this mission. Too bad that the F-35 won't be ready for over a year, yet. Plagued with problems from its start, over a generation ago, it still doesn't work. Indeed, it may never work - even though the brilliant Peter MacKay says today that he wishes he had bought it when he was minister of defence. See...

See also...

Pay special attention to the military report below the story. It says the F-35 is nowhere near being ready.

Remember, too, the problem of cost. The U.S. defence industry has become such a money-eating machine that the U.S. simply cannot afford the cost of feeding the poor, the costs of  public education of any of the normal costs of a modern government.

As well, the U.S. puts pressure on NATO to buy its weaponry from the U.S. defence industry, sucking  money out of those countries to feed the unlimited demands of the defence industry. That industry also sells weapons around the world, including to groups like ISIS.

Well, why not? It's all just profit for the U.S. defence industry. President Eisenhower warned about this almost seventy years ago. Everybody quoted him. Nobody did anything.

Today, the industry also supplies billions of dollars worth of mercenaries from all over the world to kill anybody they''re told to kill - as well as anybody they feel like killing. They are far the biggest gangs of organized crime anywhere in the world. (U.S. governments learned in the Vietnam war that Americans won't accept heavy casualties in war. But nobody gives a damn about how many mercenaries get killed, or who they kill.)

But none of this is the worse part of this story.
NATO is deploying four battalions to defend Eastern Europe from a Russian attack. Let's see, now. The U.S. planned and financed the overthrow of Ukraine. It then moved NATO ships to patrol just outside Russian sea limits. It recently put troops on the Russian border, and built and equipped missiles along the Russian border  (announcing they were there to attack Iran's nuclear programme, a programme which Iran doesn't have.)

Now, the U.S. says Russia is planning an attack on eastern Europe. And how do we know it's planning an attack?  Well, I mean, really, that's what Russians do, isn't it? Not like the U.S. which has never attacked anybody.

Oh, and Canada's very own domestic intelligence service told us. And how would a domestic intelligence service know that? Well, you know, they know people in U.S. intelligence. So they hear things.

As well, the numbers of troops involved seem out of whack with the terms company, battalion, brigade that are mentioned in the article. Britain will supply a 'battalion' of 500 troops. That's a mighty small battalion. Generally, the numbers are so small that the idea of them stoppping an invasion is absurd.
Oh, NATO will also step up patrols in the Black Sea where Russia has a naval base. The U.S. has naval bases all over the world.    Russians have had a naval base on their own territory for a couple of centuries. Apparently, it is the only country in the world that is not allowed to have its own naval base and, certainly, it would not be allowed to have one in, say, Mexico.

It's certainly provocative - while also being extremely silly. It will, however, mean big contracts for the U.S. defence industry to supply NATO standard (U.S.) weapons. It also sets up the possibility of an  incident that could provoke a real war, The NATO force, while big enough to provoke a war, is ludicrously small to fight one. Nor could it possibly be reinforced in time.

Not that it matters.

Any such war would    almost immediately become a nuclear one, with a high likelihood of other nuclear wars involving Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea - possibly China. it's a war that would involve over 15,000 nuclear bombs. Even a small fraction of that number means killing every living thing on  earth.
The NATO Secretary General ways that Russia is newly resurgent and unfriendly.

Oh?  Some 30 years ago, Russia attacked  one country - Afghanistan. Since then, it has attacked nobody. (Unlike the U.S. Russia is in Syria legally, invited by the government.) The U.S. has attacked at least six in that time. killing millions and creating tens of millions of refugees. And that doesn't count the thousands of innocent people killed by U.S. drones all over the world; and it doesn't count the murders carried out by special ops, especially in South America. U.S. activity sounds pretty damn resurgent and unfriendly to me.

The Secretary-General also says NATO doesn't want another cold war. Like hell it doesn't. This move is a cold war worse than the one we had with the Soviet Union.

NATO has become simply a subordinate part of the American empire. And the American empire is not the American people. They don't even know what is going on.

The American empire is dominated by a handful of Americans who are billionaires in oil,  mining, banking..... They have made their purpose clear. It's in a document on the web that they wrote. It's  called Project for the New American Century. It's a plan that will    allow them to rule (and loot) the world. But we never read about that plan in our news media, do we?

Nor did we hear about it in the U.S. leadership races - even though Hillary Clinton's campaign money comes largely from that gang. If elected, Trump will follow the same policy - or fall under a train.

Canada has been asked to contribute a battalion (though, given the loose usage of 'battalion', 'brigade', 'company' it's  impossible to even guess what that means in numbers.

What it does mean is that we are getting locked into the American empire. We are a colony. We will fight and die for U.S. billionaires as, in the Boer War, we fought and died for British billionaires. O, Canada.
Will Trudeau do it? You can bet  he will.

Of course, our news media also include the standard propaganda word in the story. Yes, Canada is also being asked to help fight 'extremist' groups in Africa and the middle East.

Europeans and North Americans have pillaging Africa all the way back to a slave trade that killed fifty or sixty million people. They have been pillaging the middle East for a at least a century. American mass murder is only the latest stage of mass murders in that region.

That sounds pretty extreme to me. But I have never seen a reference in any news medium to our murder of millions as 'extremism'.
A brief history of capitalist  imperialism.

It began with the 15th century development of the sailing ship that could carry people - and cargoes - anywhere in the world. At first, it benefited mostly kings and aristocrats whose superior weaponry   could easily  be used to murder and loot distant countries. Kings and aristocrats got gold, furs, silks by the shipload. The ordinary citizens got nothing.

Sailors were kidnapped to serve. Then, when their  usefulness was over, they were dumped in the streets to starve and die. Soldiers were treated at least as badly. Ordinary soldiers would be lucky to get tuppence a day. The very few who married had to live in a great, common barracks room with the other troops. And, if the soldier survived, he would simply be dumped in the street with his family. Overseas campaigns were commonly  equipped with large numbers of prostitutes who got what they could out of soldiers who earned tuppence a day.

The Royal Navy, too, carried women (though not in the movies). Whether married to sailors or not, they lived with them in the great, open spaces of the gun decks. When a baby was born, the father was almost always unknown. So, if a boy, it was listed in the captain's log as 'son of a gun'.

Control of such trade very quickly shifted to commoners who invested their money in such ventures and, who, as a result became so wealthy they could effectively control governments.

George Washington was such a person. He was, probably, the biggest capitalist in the U.S., basing his wealth on land and slave ownership. Like the other founding fathers, he did not believe that all people were equal. (Slaves abviously weren't equal. People who didn't own land weren't equal. Women weren't equal.) What they did care about was getting more land for themselves. Britain's sin was that it had forbidden expansion into native lands.

Capitalists, especially in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain were, very early, powerful enough to control governments so that governments would fight wars for them. Thus the British expeditions to conquer India and China, the American expansion in South America and The Phillipines, the French in Morocco, Algeria - all of these to subject the conquered people for the financial benefit of capitalists.

The poor, old aristocrats found themelves left out of the scramble for money. That's why British aristocrats frantically searched for marriage partners among the wealthy of the U.S. That's why Winston Churchill's father was able to save his magnificent estate by marrying a woman whose father struck it rich in mining in Arizona. And she got aristocratic status. Both husband and wife carried on busy sex lives independently.

And what did the common people of the western world get from all this?

Nothing but some of the world's worst and most dangerous slums to live in, the vilest, most dangerous places to work in. That was true in Britain, in Canada, in France, in the U.S.....

The first generation to experience hope was what born in the 1940s - the ones we call the baby boomers.

Monstrous fortunes were built by families like Rockefeller and Ford. But they paid as little as possible - and they had thugs to beat up or kill anybody who complained. And they owned governments. Canada's Mackenzie-King would (and did) crawl for a smile from the Rockefellers.

The good days didn't start until the 1940s, and lasted until the 1970s. We've been drifting backward ever since. The latest touch is the trade agreements with Europe and Asia that our government is pretty silent about. These are the last steps in making capitalists (the big ones) free of any control by us.

And it seems pretty clear that Trudeau is for these deals.

Capitalism, by itself, has never produced prosperity. Today, the U.S. spends trillions on war. As a result, it's in hopeless debt with the biggest defence budget in the world. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are hungry or homelss or both, public education is underfunded, university is  largely for the rich. And all this to defend America from invasion by - North Vietnam, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Grenada with their vast air forces and navies.

Capitalism by itself does not bring prosperity. It never has. And now it's taking us back to the Britain, Canada, US of 1900. If it did make us rich, then everyone in the U.S. would be rich or at least cared for just by the wealth created by the defence industry. A trillion dollars would feed a lot of people for a long time. But, just as in 1900, the money stops with the wealthy - and even more so since the expansion of tax havens - the expansion the irving press never talks about.
In the hysteria of fear created by our news media - and by many politicians - we lash out at people who hate us, conveniently forgetting that we have been killing and looting them for centuries.
There was really nothing to talk about in today's irving fish-wrapper. Just the hidden story about Canada saying, "ready, aye, ready" to Obama's bugle call.
Even the commentary pages are pretty lightweight. Worse, the commentary page has yet another entry by the Fraser Institute. I suppose other, garbage newspapers do this. But I have never seen another newspaper that would run material from a propaganda house for billionaires as if it were a perfectly respectable commentary column.
Well, this is long. Time for  just a few notes.

This story is from Britain. It's stunning, and I should think the problem is similar here. As you read this, think of the number of people who go hungry in Moncton, not to mention the rest of the world. It should not be difficult even for the Irving press to give us the local picture.
This is a camp for refugees at Calais, France. It's been there a long time, long enough for babies to be born and grow to adulthood. In these pictures, it is being destroyed by authorities amid clashes with the refugees who have nowhere else to go. 'Our side' has been doing this - and worse, much worse -  to millions of people.

But that's okay because some people on our side make a lot of money out of controlling the oil supply. So that means that Jesus loves our side. Check out the Faith Page for confirmation.
The word 'fascism' is used pretty loosely in daily life and in our news media - and usually wrongly. It's a tough word to define. Even political scientists and historians who study it can have trouble agreeing on a definition. But this site has a pretty good, basic idea of its meaning.
The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, limits itself almost entirely to Israeli news. Despite that limitation, it is, routinely, the most  honest and intelligent newspaper I have ever seen. (It lacks the breadth of The Guardian, but the quality of what it does print is actually higher.) And it is the only newspaper I know of whose editorials  and commentaries are always worth reading.
And here's one I could happily have missed.
The changes we need will never happen under our current systems of capitalism. We allow capitalists to get pretty much whatever they want. Capitalists are  human, with all  the faults of humans. They want money.  And they've proven in several hundred years now that they don't care what they have to do to get money.

The last time I was in a  U.S. gun store, I could have bought a Uzi submachine gun, a Vickers water-cooled machine gun or even an early 1940s anti-tank gun. A young man in Moncton was able to buy a combat-style rifle, and kill three police.  A young man in Orlando was able to buy a U.S. army combat rifle.
There was at least a reaction to the killings in Orlando. But It's not likely to have any significant effect. Capitalists make piles of money out of weapons, and they've proven for generations that they don't give a damn who gets killed.

The oil industry capitalists make piles of money selling oil. And it doesn't give a damn what that does to human and animal life. Ask the Koch brothers. Ask the Fraser Insititute. Ask Atlantic Institute of Market Studies.

Ask the millions of refugees from the  hell the oil industry has made of the middle east.

Our form of capitalism, even as it is, will destroy itself and the rest of us through the fears and hatreds it creates, the starvation and sickness it creates....

We have to stop conforming. We have to stop running with the hysterical mob.

We have to start looking at changes and, if necessary, alternatives.

And we really don't have much time.

No comments:

Post a Comment