• "God invented war so Americans could learn geography" -- Mark Twain.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Pope Condemns Pharaonic Oppressions of NeoLiberal Capitalism



Predictably, the neoliberal propaganda machine (aka “Hillary Press”) has distorted the Pope's recent remarks, bending them to their own nefarious and partisan purposes. Since the address is published in Spanish and Italian only, this will set the record straight for those with a waning interest in objectivity.

It is true, the Pope denounced walls built of fear and needless to say a U.S. audience would interpret this as referring to the border with Mexico and hence as an indirect attack on Trump. 

But what the Pope actually denounced was the “divinization of money” which was an “existential whip” which, as in Ancient Egypt, enslaves and exhausts without mercy (un látigo existencial que, como en el Egipto del Antiguo Testamento, esclaviza, roba la libertad, azota sin misericordia). You know, like usurious college loans perhaps?

So how does money rule? It rules with the lash of fear, economic violence and military oppression. (Con el látigo del miedo, de la inequidad, de la violencia económica, social, cultural y militar que engendra más y más violencia en una espiral descendente que parece no acabar jamás). It is from that primary violence, the Pope said,  that religious and narco- terrorism are derived. 

All tyranny, he says, operates by exploiting fears. Those who, despite massacres, plunder, injustice and oppression, still hold on to some rights are tempted by the false security of walls; walls which enclose some and exclude others.

The Pope certainly denounced xenophobia and indifference to the refugees fleeing the (US induced) disaster in Syria, but his premise was the tyranny of Mammon and its consequent “globalization of indifference” which did not put economy at the service of the people, which did not promote peace and justice and which did not defend Mother Earth. (As in continuous military incursions around the world, mass incarceration of petty offenders, sub-subsistence jobs, inadequate health care, penurious retirement,  ecocide,  fracking, coal tar extracting and palm oil deforestation.)

What is really choice is that at the outset, the Pope cited Quadressimo Anno the 1933 encyclical in which then Pope Pius XI denounced the economic dictatorship of international capital ("dictadura económica mundial que él llamó «imperialismo internacional del dinero». ) In fact Pius XI was also very vigorous in his denunciation of the “idols of Liberalism.” by which he meant exactly the economic policies pursued by Hillary and Obama and all American administrations since Reagan.

Of course the slop and slosh that passes for journalism in England and the U.S. would attempt to trivialize the Pope’s statements, rendering them harmless to the evil the corporate press supports (global capitalism sub nom. “free trade”) while abusing the Pope's remarks as a foil for their own enemies.

The Church has always denounced liberal economics. It has always insisted that people have a right economic security from the state as a precondition to personal growth and freedom.

"Toda la doctrina social de la Iglesia y el magisterio de mis antecesores se rebelan contra el ídolo-dinero que reina en lugar de servir, tiraniza y aterroriza a la humanidad."
If anything, his remarks were directed against Hillary and the arms-peddlers, money lenders, war-mongers and earth-destroyers she serves and supports

 ©

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Reading between the Slime


The New York Slime reported (10/30) on CETA, as follows

BRUSSELS — The European Union and Canada signed a far-reaching trade agreement on Sunday that commits them to opening their markets to greater competition, after overcoming a last-minute political obstacle that reflected the growing skepticism toward globalization in much of the developed world.

...

On Friday, Wallonia, which has been hit hard by deindustrialization and feared greater agricultural competition, withdrew its veto after concessions were made by the Belgian government, including promises to protect farmers.


[T]he Walloon intransigence has underlined the extent to which trade has become politically radioactive as citizens increasingly blame globalization for growing disparities in wealth and living standards. Across Europe and the United States, opposition to trade has become a rallying point for populist movements on the left and the right, threatening to upend the established political order.

The key word here is “competition.”  Repeatedly the established political order, of which the New York Slime, is a primary cloaca, tells us that these agreements are trade treaties which are a win-win proposition which will promote “good paying jobs at home.”

The image evoked is that of two neighbours trading sugar for flour over the fence.  What could be more innocent, friendly and winwin for both?

But competition is “a contest or rivalry between two or more organisms, animals, individuals, economic groups or social groups, etc., for territory, a niche, for resources, goods, for mates, ...”  (Wiki)  Not so kumbaya after all.

How does the Slime pull off telling a misleading truth?

It does so because of the secondary meaning given to the word “competition” by capitalist propaganda.  Over and over again ad nauseam, competition is spoken of as a healthy thing, like exercise, which brings innovation and better products to market, like getting stronger muscles. 

In this vein the Slime quotes GLOBCAP’s newest poster boy, thus

 Mr. Trudeau said he wanted to “make sure that everyone gets that this is a good thing for our economies but it’s also a good example to the world.”

In actuality, capitalist competition is simply Economic Darwinism.  It engorges and destroys. Why else would this Friendly Trade Treaty require an addendum that “promises to protect farmers”? 

According to Turdeau,  “trade is good for the middle class and those working hard to join it.”   Not, however, if you’re a farmer in the target country.   Just as NAFTA destroyed the Mexican farmer,  CETA is not so good/good for the Walloon.

Nevertheless, having castrated the word “competition” of its true meaning so as to present a glowy picture of capitalist rapine,  the Slime goes on to disparage those who might think otherwise.

In saying that ordinary citizens blame GLOBCAP for inequity and austerity, the Slime insinuates that they are misinformed, childish naysayers.  What the Slime cunningly omits to mention is that despite this “good thing for our economies,”  inequity and austerity are ravaging societies across the globe.   Neither in the United States, nor Spain, nor India and certainly not Africa, do the metrics come close to proving that these Competition Treaties benefit society as a whole. 

The Slime needn’t engage in a prolonged digression from “the story line.”  All it needed to have written was that “citizens blame globalisation for [the] growing disparities in wealth and living standards that afflict countries around the world.   A simply five word clause would suffice to give objective validity to a blame which is otherwise implicitly characterised as a subjective idiosyncrasy. 

When all this mind-mushing is over and done with the Slimes then turns around and slap the reader in the face by admitting it and the competition treaties it champions are the established political order and FUCK YOU.


©

Monday, October 24, 2016

American Pertinax (Synopsis)


[Synopsis of Longer Article in Journal]

Bernie’s candidacy triggered an astonishing surge of populist progressive sentiment in the country, which probably surprised no one more the Bernie whose candidacy was initially intended only to “put issues on the table.”

The “issues” which were suddenly driven by the force of millions represented an existential threat to the Entrenched Powers.  The political machinery of the economic oligarchy (including its apparatchiks in the press, academia and so-called policy institutes) successfully defeated the movement by fair means and mostly foul.  

Sanders declined to run on a third party ticket and instead urged his followers to unite behind a candidate who represented everything his movement fought against. Bernie’s betrayal of his enthusiastic and hopeful supporters flows from what was the underling deceit of his message.

Upon being deprived of the nomination, the political revolution for which Bernie claimed to speak should have upped the ante and broken the back of the D.N.C. by handing it a punishing electoral defeat.  A revolutionary movement does not consist in putting issues on the table but in commanding political power.  A true revolutionary would have maintained that over-riding strategic objective, from which all other blessings flow.

Instead Bernie sought to rally his supporters to join in the Battle of the Nudge by working “within the system” to nudge the beast to the left. He never explained how or why a beast that had done everything conceivable to moot, undercut and defeat him in the primary would now suddenly become amenable to nudging.  Bernie was not defeated because he was Bernie but because the political and economic demands he was making were threatening and antithetical to the constituency Hillary represents.

No issue more paradigmaticaly illustrates the futility of betrayal than the party’s position on the so-called “trade” treaties.  

The most important and urgent issue facing the world is the environmental and ecological destruction of the planet.  Whatever other issues might be important to individuals or sub-groups, the health and maintenance of the ecosystem on which all life depends is of pre-conditional importance.  To have even to argue the point is a sign of the depravity and degradation of the so-called “rational animal.”

The next most pressing issue is the misnomered trade treaties.  These treaties have nothing to do with trade. As Obama himself admitted in private to Bernie, they have nothing to do with creating jobs.  The purpose of the treaties is to remove legal impediments to investors and corporations buying up countries and plundering resources wherever they want to.

The treaties set up a supra-national unaccountable invisible military-corporate government, GLOBCORP and GLOBCOP, to rule the world according to no standard except corporate profit.  The treaties destroy the power of national government to legislate and regulate for the common good.  They destroy democracy and, indeed, civil society themselves.  They are an end-stage political cancer.

On this most important political-economic issue on which both greater and lesser issues depend, Mr. Nudge has nudged nothing.  The Demorat Party platform did not commit to defeating the treaties but only provided a clause that any treaty would have to “provide” for environmental and labor standards, a provision Hillary’s own platform studiously omits altogether.  Bernie has correctly denounced the “insanity” of the treaties but he is oblivious to the impotence of his nudging.

Bernie’s betrayal flows from the underlying deceit of his political philosophy.  He was never a true socialist but only a revived New Dealer; that is to say, a pseudo social democrat. 

But Europe’s social-democrats and “socialists” are themselves pseudo-socialists.  Lenin called them “social chauvinists.”  What he meant was that in the end and when the chips are down they supported the national-capitalist class in each country in which they operated. 

They supported that class (and waged its wars) because the “benefits” they were seeking to obtain for the worker were obtained from a system which obtains wealth by means of exploitation. 

If redistributed wealth is not obtained from the workers to whom it is redistributed, it must be obtained elsewhere from some out-of-sight, ignored worker in a fourth world country or by means of some other form of wealth producing plunder.  The success of the “European Model” or of the Fifties-Sixties “Prosperity” in the United States, depended on displacing costs. 

The deceit of social democracy is not that it is wrong to fight for life improving social benefits in the interim.  The defect lies in the fact that benefits are obtained from an economic model which cannot sustainably support them.  There is nothing wrong in bleeding a beast while you seek to kill it; but if you forget the killing and focus only on the bleeding, the beast will turn around and kill you.

The Faustian Bargain of social democracy has a narrow edge.  In theory social democracy could be revolutionary.  In practice it never has been.  It acquiesces in political and economic system that provides the benefits and in the end, as for all Quislings, Uncle Toms and Ghetto Elders, the “revolution” gets swallowed up. 

©

Friday, October 21, 2016

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick Saves the World (Again)


The Grand Duchy of Fenwick and it’s regional sister the (erstwhile) Margrave of Wallonia have together blocked ratification of the Canadian-EuroUnion Trade Treaty (CETA), after Germany’s Bundesverfassungsgericht failed to do so. 

Fenwickian Flag

Canada’s trade negotiator, Chrystia Freeland, visiblement très émue, returned to Ottawa stating “I am very disappointed.... but it’s impossible.”

According to the BBC  “The deal aims to eliminate 98% of tariffs between Canada and EU... It includes new courts for investors, harmonised regulations, sustainable development clauses and access to public sector tenders.”

What BBC does not tell its readers is that the trade is not really between “Canada” and the EU and that the “new courts” will be stacked in favour of corporations enforcing pro-corporate regulations.

Walloon Minister-President Paul Magnette, explained,

“We have clearly indicated, for more than a year, that we have a real difficulty with the arbitration mechanism, which could be used by multinationals based in Canada, that are not really Canadian companies, and on this point we find the proposals insufficient,”


That was Eurospeak for what we just said.

Neither the BBC nor the corporate-run press elsewhere disclose what these arbitration clauses mean.  However, what they mean is sufficiently proved by Trans-Canada’s $13 billion dollar legal suit against the U.S. government following Obama’s veto of the Keystone pipeline.

In simple English, the arbitrarion or “special court” provisions allow a corporation to sue for damages when it is prevented from damaging a country’s environment.   If you need to read that again, you read it right the first time.

One would never get the true scoop from pro-trade running dogs but what the “trade” treaties are about is establishing a supra-national, unaccountable corporate dictatorship.

Not Amused by That
The prostrated, depravity of the national governments is proved beyond doubt by the fact that none of them had any problem loosing their sovereign prerogatives to some anonymous corporation operating out of a domicile of convenience. 

However, under EU rules, all decisions must be unanimous and under Belgian Law no treaty can be ratified without the affirmative consent of its three, constituent erstwhile duchies, of which Wallonia is one.

Needless to say enormous pressure will be brought to bear on Wallonia to blackmail it into changing its mind before the October 27 deadline.   Needless to say, enormous inducements will be thrust at the Grand Duchy to bring it around and into submission.   If anyone does not think that the Great Obambi is not leaning on Paul Magnette, standing bold and dauntless amidst the wash of servile niebelungen and snivelling quislings that pass for Europe’s ruling elite, he does not know what is at stake or what Obambi is about.

Ave!  Conste Wallonia! 
©

Thursday, October 20, 2016

The Real Debate


While the US presidential candidates were engaging in their chronic gutter-sniping, Marine Le Pen, head of the French Front National was giving an interview to Stephen Sackur of BBC’s hard talk.

Sackur:
Let me ask you.. do you see yourself and your movement as part of world wide phenomenon?

Le Pen:
Yes; there is something happening in  the world. The people’s will is clearly emerging against either supranational political powers such as the EU or big financial powers and against a system which for too many years has been defending specific [special] interests and no longer defends the interests of people 

That is Brexit but also all these referenda in Europe which clearly show that the EU is being rejected — in Denmak, in the Netherlands and in Hungary some days ago, and soon enough probably in Italy.

Something fundamental is happening which is the comback of nations, of sovereign states with people and frontiers.  People want to be in charge of their destinies and for a long time they were prevented for doing so.
-o0o-

In so saying, Le Pen staked out a position diametrically opposed to the corporate globalism Hillary Clinton represents.  While Hillary, ever the duplicitous dodger and dissembler, has pretended to have “come around” to being against the trade treaties, she has come nowhere.

The position stated in both the Demorat Party platform and Hillary’s web page is nothing more than a bunch of weasel clauses in search of a stance.   Any fool can see that Hillary remains committed to the “four freedoms” the bottom line of which is that the rich get to buy wherever they want while the rest get to scramble for work wherever they can find it, even if 1000 miles away.

Hillary, no stranger to fanning outrage over politically incorrect transgressions, remained stunningly silent when Trans-Canada, availing itself of treaty-clauses, sued the U.S. government for $13 billion dollars in “damages” after Obama vetoed Keystone.  

While Sanders and Trump are also against the trade treaties, they failed to articulate the fundamentals.  Their opposition was stated in mostly in terms of job losses with Trump adding immigration.  Neither mentioned that NAFTA caused as much job-loss in Mexico as it did in the U.S., as a result of treaty mandated restriction's on Mexico's "right" to support its domestic agricultural sector.   Neither spoke to the fundamental evil of the current trade treaties which is that they are a threat to national sovereignty in all spheres.  It has been left to Le Pen to triumph the cause of nationalism as such front and forward. 

One of the inevitable concomitants of the mass consumer states is that it disables people from distinguishing what is fundamental from what is not.  The overriding habitus of the consumer state is the satisfaction of impulsive and idiocyncratic desires, albeit carefully cultivated and manipulated.  Social policy gets conceived of as a list of disconnected and often inconsistent wants.  SUMMUM WANNA

But some things are fundamental in that their existence or non existence determine all other ensuing issues.  The environment is fundamental because without a life sustaining environment nothing else exists and one’s desire for gender-free access to bathrooms becomes moot.

The nation state is fundamental because it acts as the environment for all subordinated political, economic and social decisions.

At this point, a qualification must be made. The nation state is not an eternal constant.  It was a specific historical phenomenon that began its formation in the 13th century with the Albigensian Crusade which was, at bottom, the suppression of local autonomy in favour of a centralized monarchy. In other words, the nation state was itself the emergence of a supra-manorial and supra-municipal power at a given point in history.

Indeed, the progress of history can  be viewed as the successive emergence over time of ever greater and more encompassing ambits of authority, although there are periodic retrograde retrenchments such as the so-called collapse of the Roman Empire, which in actuality represented a return of grass roots popular sovereignty.  Vive Asterix!

(We know that capitalist propaganda — aka the “enlightenment” — has obscured the true nature of feudalism so that all one can say at this point is that the reader will have to unenlighten himself as best she can.)

But what is a constant is that, at any given historical stage, a given unitary formation of a people (what the Greeks called a “polis”) retains sovereign control of their own destiny.

When nationalism usurped local freedoms what ensued over time was a reclamation of those freedoms in what are now known as the bourgeois revolutions of 1688 and 1789.  When Marine Le Pen refers to the French Republic she refers to fundamental political concord and control among and by the people of France at a given stage of historical development.


The obvious counter-point to Le Pen would be to assert that the new supra-national, global corporate state represents the ongoing evolution of human sovereignty.  The “next stage” as it were.

There are, no doubt, some socialists who might welcome the emergence of a global corporate state on the assumption that once in place it could be taken over by a triumphant proletariat working in the interests of the people.

The only difficulty with that long-term historical analysis is that by then no world will be left — or at least no world worth living on — because global corporate capitalism is not simply avaricious but fundamentally destructive.  It will in fact turn the world into a holocaust on Moloch’s altar.

The counterpoint between the national and the supra-national state boils down to the problem of size which, simply stated, is that you cannot have an infinitely large elephant.  At some point the skeletal structure required to support a mega-elephant is so thick and big that what exists, if it exists at all, is not an “elephant.”

The Roman Empire was a manifestation of the problem of size.  The idea (or at least the propaganda) of Julius Caesar for a Pan-Mediterranean (“global”) super-state of peoples united in peace and prosperity under aegis of Rome was simply not attainable.

Augustus rejected Caesar’s plan for a trans-national constituent assembly because, even if Roman jingoism could be overcome, the mechanics were all but impossible.  Instead, Augustus espoused a policy of “incremental romanization”.  As a result, what is called the Roman Empire was simply a class structure  — a band of romanized provincial middle classes adjunct to and supportive of a one percent elite in the four principal urban centers (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria) ruling over millions of repressed and dispossessed people. 

According to Edward GibbonThe frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury.”    But assuming arguendo a “happy period” from A.D. 98-180, more recent research has  painted a far more brutal picture beneath the exceptionalist blarney.  The empire was organized rapine — urban centres sucking the life blood out of their hapless surroundings —  and that translated into the misery of many for the wealth and luxury of a few.


The official Christianization of the Empire did not humanize this global, predator super-state; the urban episcopacy simply joined the one percent. The humanising impact of Christianity occurred at the local and feudal level under diocesan bishops guiding and giving voice to popular aspirations.

By analogy, the notion that a humanising socialism could effect a proletarian coup d’etat over a once established global super-state is, in our opinion, an unfounded pipe dream.   There are simply limits as to how big a “democracy” can get and still be a democracy.   James Madison himself made this point in Federalist Paper No. 10 wherein he discussed how the nature and constitutional structure of a republic depended on its size and extent.

It is arguable, perhaps, that at 140 million spread out over a continent, the United States still preserved the features of a true representative democracy; or, at least a democracy that was possible except for the country’s deplorable counter-democratic electoral system.  At 300 million, no form of democracy is possible; what exists is simply a degraded Roman farce.

Extent is as critical as size.  The dream of the 1812 Spanish Liberals for an ultra-marine constituent assembly compromising all inhabitants of Spain and the Americas was unachievable both logistically and in terms of the normal focus of each its constituent parts.  People are naturally disposed to be concerned about things in their proximate environments.  They don’t care about and are in any case not in a position to familiarize themselves with local problems a thousand leagues away.  Thus, apart from the mechanics of communication, size impacts on what people are disposed and capable to communicate about. The Count of Aranda had prophetically made this point in 1788 when he proposed that the only way to save the Empire was to break it up into distinct (albeit allied) sovereign nations — united by ties of religion and commerce and “in all events to the exclusion of England.”

Had his advice been followed there is a chance that an Empire of Sovereign Nations might have survived the Anglo-American onslaught.

In all events, both Aranda and Madison were on to the same problem of size. The ideal size for a parliamentary nation state seems to lie somewhere between 40 and 80 million.  A more accurate assessment would most likely be based on a correlation of population to GDP and other factors. However, what is evident, as a positivist fact, is that the current sizes of the major European states allow each of them to come to an articulable consensus derived from manageable differences. 

European nationalism would never prevent trade; it would rather base trade on priorities established by each of the trading counterparts.  Since the claque that governs the United States cannot conceive of priorities other than the financial bottom line, globalists like Clinton can’t conceive of differing priorities.  Doesn’t everyone believe that happiness is profit?  Actually not.  Profit like manure is necessary to fertilize productivity but right thinking people do not idolize dung.

With these considerations in mind, it can be seen that Le Pen’s call for a devolution of powers and a return to nationalism is not as reactionary and counter-historical as socialists of the internationalist mode might make it out to be.  In fact, in Latin America, liberationist and leftist thought currently rejects one-world globalism in favour of national and local political-economies based on and congenial to ethno-historical formations. 

The Gazette would prefer a Le Pen who was more to the left than she apparently is, although by troglodyte U.S. standards she out-lefts even Sanders.  That said, Le Pen is  about fundamentals and, on that level, the real debate last night was not between Trump and Clinton but between Le Pen d’Arc and the Whore of Globalism.



There can be no doubt where the Gazette stands.

©

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Oh What a Lovely Encore!


In an editorial dated November 11 2008, the NYSlime, called on Obama to continue Bush’s wars by other means. Urging a withdrawal from Iraq, the editorial went on to endorse war in Afghanistan: 

The United States and its NATO allies must be able to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan AND keep pursuing Al Qaeda forces around the world.” 

(Please to note “around the world”.) 

Written in Slimeze, the editorial was a de facto endorsement of neo-con full spectrum interventionism.

Today the Slime reports on, and endorses sub silentio, a New War in Africa

The Somalia campaign is a blueprint for warfare that President Obama has embraced and will pass along to his successor.”

With inestimable aplomb, the Slimes states that the current strategy will not repeat the “mistakes” made in Afghanistan and called for in its editorial of 11/11/08.

The Slimes quietly omits the Administration’s construction of a new drone base in Niger to serve as a key regional hub for U.S. military operations.

Once again, the P.N.A.C.’s  9/2000 white paper (Rebuilding America’s Defenses) serves as the ongoing blue print for a fully continuous foreign policy that has remained in effect since 9/2001.  The difference between Obama and Bush is simply a modulation as to which part of the spectrum will be active in any given place or time.  It's ultimate effect and secret purpose is nation destruction.

In all events what the Slime has just told anyone who wants to have a brain worthy of being used, is that the Annointed One, will continue the policy of nation-destruction which she and her boss so ably executed in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan — not to mention Yemen.
 
One correction needs to be noted. The New York Slime  speaks of this issue as a matter of United States foreign policy. That is anachronistic and misleading.  There is no such thing as “American” foreign policy.  There is simply a global corporate policy with economic, diplomatic and military aspects, carried out by a prime enforcer.

Pity the elephants.



©