FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Naomi Klein: Disaster Capitalism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've lectured about that on VIDEO once, real low key and loose, not really dignified. I was in this chick's living room on her couch and she filmed me. It hit local public access. Got any offers?

I've told black people (including peace activists) about the Black Legion (white KKK guys in black outfits funded by Dupont and GM) and they never heard of that OR the Bush family ties.

I did not know about Coca Cola and Fanta either, but I believe Coke uses slave labor or near-slave labor conditions in South America and probably India today, and has caused severe ecological damage in India. Coke has also employed death squads in Columbia and other areas to kill labor activists or people who even think about unionizing.

Here's something I just sent out via email, partly based on the talk-radio-hysteria today.

My take on Amadinejad and some possible reasons why this Holocaust debate hysteria is so important in America in 2007, long after Hitler's bones have decayed.

I'm referring to the media hysteria staged on many TV shows and such today. My friend informed me that one channel even brought on their own local "the Holocaust never happened" character in order to yell at him.

(The "larger Holocaust story-myth" I refer to below includes many surrounding issues, such as the uniqueness of the events. Norm Finkelstein's parents were Holocaust survivors of camps, but he explained that his mother either gets angry or actually laughs at some of the ridiculous overblown Holocaust assertions that show up on TV and hijack her personal experiences to justify what he describes as financial 'extortion' used to benefit a gravy train of non-victims, a Holocaust Industry, which is the title of Finkelstein's book. This is my own characterization and understanding of Finkelstein's explanations, not specifically authorized. Refer directly to Finkelstein's writing for clarification.)

Questioning the Holocaust threatens to shorten the "yardstick of acceptable genocide".
Acceptance of the Holocaust creates multiple justifications for Israel to shoot to death teenagers and even first and second grade children, as well as men and women.

One justification created by the Holocaust story is Jewish self-defense and Jewish survival, but not all Jews believe that violence and murder is either necessary or appropriate for self-defense. The other justification is about the numbers and parameters of acceptable State violence.

Unquestioned acceptance of the Holocaust story permits the American govt. to carry out mass murder, by the same formula as Israel.

What do I mean by this? I think Finkelstein would agree (but I can't vouch for him):

In the public forum and in people's minds, "genocide" and "Holocaust" has certain distinct parameters, as does "Hitler" and "like Hitler".

Calling George W. Bush or Bill Clinton "a fascist" or "like Hitler" -- even though Bush's father and grandfather and great-grandfather actually really supported Hitler and the Nazis and Nazi industry thoroughout and after the War -- is treated as a ridiculous obscenity, and called "desperate" and "liberal".

This denial remains the case despite the fact of clear and well-documented evidence within the U.S. National Archives and from Dutch banking sources that several generations of the Bush family collaborated directly with the Nazis, including during and after the war, and that Bush heirs directly benefitted from such deeds and membership in this pro-Nazi business clique which helped found the CIA that GHWB later directed.

Did Bush kill SIX million Iraqi people? No. Not yet.
Did Clinton starve SIX million Iraqi people? No, only about 2 million estimated, and slightly less than 1 million children estimated died. Madeline Albright confirmed half a million kids by 1996, and justified it as "worth it" on 20/20. Less deaths from Clinton's 72 days of peaceful bombing of Kosovo/Serbia.

Was the Vietnam War a Holocaust? No. Only FOUR million Asians were killed. Chomsky said 2 or 3, but Sec Def McNamara said 4. Million.

What about another THREE million by a US-backed coup by Wahabbis in Indonesia in 1965. Well, that "mistake" or overzealousness still falls short of the magic SIX.

Ditto for FOUR million North Koreans. No Holocaust there.

In the 100 years of US support for Latin American tyrants and death squads, probably less than the magic SIX million were killed, or at least not all at once. 8,000 here, 70,000 there, 100,000 somewhere else, that's still not an "official" Holocaust, so that leaves a space for excuses and apologetics. "You can't seriously be suggesting multiple U.S. Presidents acted like Hitler, can you?"

In all discussions about economic justice, the fallback is Stalin's and Mao's 100 million killed, which some critics argue is a number cooked up by Goebbel's Nazi propaganda office, then repeated by the US media systems (Hearst and other writers) during and after World War 2, when the Cold War needed some emotional fuel to get off the ground. Certainly these tyrants killed many people through assassination and/or incompetence, though some deaths were perhaps not their fault and occurred as the unavoidable effects of weather-related famines (combined with denial of emergency aid).

So if you favor any govt regulation of corporate malfeasance and economic injustice, you must be a fan of Stalin. That's a neat way to side-step the point that "a corporation" is a govt. legal instrument, not a human being.

So if capitalist nations attack and subjugate indigenous people in some distant land, or institute neo-imperialist economics that leads to mass deaths from hunger and disease, just so long as it's less than 100 million, that's acceptable. "A few innocents" as Ronald Reagan said about the people that his buddies like the "Majestic" General Galtieri killed in Argentina.

Has Israel and the master-race ideology (Theodore Herzl) of Zionism killed SIX million Palestinians? Well, maybe over the last 50 years, I don't know, but there are not 6 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza now. So in propaganda terms, it might be acceptable to murder every single Palestinian man, women, and child in the territories and still fall short of the official Holocaust title.

That's not all. The specific (usually unstated) rigid parameters include the assertion that a Holocaust must include a plan to selectively exterminate by race or religion, actual gene-o-cide, a.k.a. "human ecology". If killing is random -- or if the official plan is said to target victims other than by race or religion -- than mass murder cannot officially be termed a Holocaust.

So long as only "Palestinian terrorists" and "Palestinian suspected terrorists" (including children) are the target of extermination -- not the Palestinian people per se -- then the Holocaust and Nazi and Fascism alarms is not activated.

If a mass murder is said to be against "terrorists" or "communists" or "agitators" or "troublemakers" or "bad guys" or "evildoers" rather than Arabs, Muslims, Iraqis, or Iranians, some other specific racial or religious group or nationality, then the Holocaust Rules of Debate come in to play, which generates a blanket of acceptability to State-orchestrated mass murder.

There is a tongue-in-cheek rule in debates, especially online newsgroup debates, called Godwin's Law, which says that any debate that goes on long enough will eventually lead to a statement about Hitler. This "Law" has been used to ridicule ALL debates which bring up the name of Hitler -- except those specifically about World War Two or those Hitler-comparisons promoted by a Western government like the USA. (I think even Bush and Clinton were cited with Godwin's Law by some critics, for comparing Milosevic or Saddam to "Hitler", for summoning up the Dead Hitler mythology.)

I now introduce Goodman's Laws:

1. Any challenge to the war or "defense" policies of any Allied "free world" nation will eventually bring forth defensive arguments based on positive comparisons to Hitler or Stalin.

2. Any call for peaceful negotiations and friendly compromises will eventually lead to ahistorical phony counter-arguments about not stopping the Nazis and not preventing the Holocaust, though often the arguments will emerge from cliques which actually backed the Nazis.

3. Any debate challenging the justice of neo-liberal "free trade" economics with more humane policies and regulations will eventually be refuted by calling upon the ghosts of long-dead communist tyrants.

Who knows. Maybe Goodman's Law will become part of the Lexicon.

(Having said that, Iran's internal system of justice of which Amadinejad is a part, seems to carry the baggage of quite a few archaic religious doctrines which are stifling to freedom and violent towards dissenters. Cellphone videos are being released on the web. However, more threats to the existence of any nation via outside military attack almost always tends to solidify support for the rulers, as people "circle the wagons" and cling to the only support available.)

I realize we may bicker about the exact meaning of "communism" on this forum, but that was for general public consumption.

I'm also not DISMISSING what Patrick is writing about, but ya gotta start somewhere with the Gen public.
Back to top

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

speaking of Disaster Capitalism, I just found this on the i-tulip free forum, linked from Michael Hudson's site.

Israel asks U.S. foreign aid be paid in EUROS

Secretary of State Rice has acknowledged a communique from Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Levni which requests that all foreign aid payments and loans from the United States be made in Euros rather than in Dollars.

Foreign Minister Levni cited the rapidly declining dollar and it's disfavor as a world currency as reasons for the request. "In the spirit of Yom Kippur, the United States will not hold Israel to any agreements obligating them to accept Dollars as payment for their foreigh aid. We will translate our obligations into Euros or whatever currency that best fits Israel's needs" Secretary RIce said in the Friday, Sept 21 announcement.

"We need to place our Israeli obligations at the top of our national prioriy list. Israel should not suffer any inconvenience due to currency fluctuations" said Rice before heading off to Camp David.

A similar request from Egypt was declined last week.

on link
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
does the Rumsfeld hand jive

Hey, it wasn't me!
This is Claymore's genius!

I was completely fooled.

I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

It wasn't until I saw the "satire" tag that I realized it was a prank.

But, hey - can you blame me for believing it?

It's entirely plausible.

"Money" has no value - people do.

Borscht and Gefilte fish are also Kosher!
Secretary Rice added that borscht and gefilte fish could also be substituted for Dollars or Euros.

She nixed the idea of payment in Rice balls!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Back to top

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More analysis from Hudson, on something I thought about and posted a while ago:
CAREFUL ABOUT ALL THE ANTI-GOVERNMENT MESSAGES. Where are they going? The Ron Paul phenomenon too!

SS: Can you spell out how the privatization of the broadcasting spectrum affects culture?

MH: To the extent that music, drama and literature are disseminated through these media, they need sites. They have to pay an access charge for these locations. This access charge is their rental price.

These sites are still legally in the public domain, much like the public land, subsoil mineral rights and forests which the government has leased out since the 19th century at only a fraction of their economic value. Most of these leases reflect insider deals that go way back in time--in the case of radio and TV, to the 1920s.

The media are like department stores. They need a good location to sell their products. In this case the location is a place on the radio and TV dial for a particular space of time. The effect has been to turn the radio and TV spectrum into an opportunity to charge rent for specific frequencies at specific time slots that represent space in the public's attention.

Somebody needs to write a new history of how the great American fortunes of the 20th century were formed. You would find that they came largely from insiders grabbing rent-yielding activities from the public domain. (including railroads)

Economic rent is a kind of super-profit. It is best thought of not as profits that are earned by producing output, but are a free ride simply from charging more for natural monopolies. Finance has promoted privatization and provided loans to buyers, recognizing that this is its major market, after real estate mortgage lending. Over the past century the financial sector has raised the money to enable outsiders to buy up the most lucrative monopolies, as well as real estate, creating a symbiosis between Finance, Insurance and Real Estate--the FIRE sectors.

Bankers and bond investors realize that corporate raiders and indeed, buyers in general are willing to pay out all the income taken by monopolies (or apartment buildings or other assets) as interest in exchange for the money to buy them. So the financial lobby has backed the monopolies in urging deregulation of the checks and balances put in place from Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt during the first three decades of the 20th century. The more monopoly rent can be extracted (or real estate rent, for that matter), the more revenue can be pledged as interest to creditors putting up the money to buy these assets. The financial sector thus has led the attack on regulation, on government ownership, and of course on the taxation of rental income and capital gains. The financial objective is to lend money to companies against their flow of income--all the better if it is monopoly income ­rather than seeing the government tax this revenue.

In effect, the financial sector has become the deregulator and planner, taking over what most people expected to become public-sector functions in the 1920s and '30s. All the better if money can be lent to broadcasters with a right-wing, anti-government perspective. Via "talk radio" and slanted news broadcasts, Clear Channel, FOX and CNN, along with the major newspaper chains, promote an anti-government view that in effect is pro-financial while pretending to be populist.

SS: What is the moral?

MH: Privatizing the air waves has decoupled broadcasting from traditional culture and its educational functions, promoting cultural values that are opposite from those traditionally held. The object of TV and radio programs is to serve as a vehicle to attract an audience to commercials. This is achieved more by absorbing attention than by engaging the mind. The cultural effect of this media and data overload is a spread of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). This particular form of alienation is thus a byproduct of privatization.

The effect is for the audience--that is, the population--to respond frenetically without really thinking. The distinction between fame and notoriety is compressed into superficial the idea of "celebrity." Free-enterprise advocates claim that this reflects the morality of individual fulfillment, but it trivializes the ability to think coherently about how the world is being shaped politically and economically. To watch the media today one would think that the criterion for success is a one-dimensional measure--net worth, not the manner in which it is obtained. At the end of this process, monopolists such as Microsoft's Bill Gates head the list of "most admired men," along with Donald Trump and even Citibank's Sandy Weil. I guess Enron's Ken Lay used to be on this list. Even more confusing, they are admired as industrialists, not as exploiters whose main achievement was to get something for nothing.

Less widely seen is the financial motivation underlying this inversion of traditional attitudes toward the public utilities and the responsibilities of government. The key is to be found in the degree to which financial institutions have raised loans for the moguls who have bought the broadcasting companies with borrowed funds, and then find that they need to turn around and carry their debt by selling as much air time as possible to commercial buyers. Banks and brokerage underwriters have long seen that privatization creates a market for buying public enterprises and assets to be financed on credit. The more the broadcasting frequencies and monopolies are deregulated, the more their frequencies will be worth, and hence the more money will be borrowed to buy them--or indirectly to obtain them by buying out the companies that control the rental rights to these frequencies.

As long as the government controlled and operated the airwaves and other infrastructure and utilities in the public domain, it did not need investment bankers and stockbrokers. It did not need to pay interest, dividends, underwriting fees and management fees. Also, public media do not provide an opportunity for the private sector to make capital gains as they raise their rent charges for their broadcasting frequencies. Precisely because they are not financed by debt, the large financial institutions have little interest in promoting their success. The public interest was not seen as being maximized by using the airwaves simply as media for commercials.

To drum up popular support for getting governments out of regulation and operation of broadcasting and other public enterprises, the financial sector's spokesmen--led by the Chicago School--spearheaded a campaign asserting that governments cannot run enterprises efficiently, and depicting public enterprise as imposing the equivalent of burdensome taxes rather than charging user fees.

Where government enterprises are run inefficiently, it is largely the result of financial or ideologically monetarist constraints being imposed arbitrarily and with the intent to cripple public efficiency. One of the most notorious examples occurred in Britain after 1975. To prevent public enterprises from modernizing, the IMF and other monetarists succeeded in blocking these enterprises from raising money to modernize. All investment by such enterprises was counted as part of the public sector's overall budget deficit, and hence deemed to be inherently inflationary--and was blocked on this ground. The tacit implication was that investment by borrowing money from private creditors would have a different, inherently less inflationary effect. There was of course no basis at all for this, as John Kay and other British critics of privatization have demonstrated for two decades now.

At the lowest end of the intellectual spectrum, privatization is promoted as a way of raising money that enables governments to avoid taxing people--mainly the wealthiest classes. At the end of this process the financial sector gains control, because the winning bidders for privatized enterprises or assets such as the air waves are obliged to borrow in order to outbid their rivals.

The essence of matters is that private enterprise in today's economic environment means debt-financed enterprise. One of the favorite projects for which banks will lend money and brokerage firms will underwrite stocks is the purchase of public monopolies. This enables their new private owners to charge rent as an access charge for whatever is monopolized. In the case of culture this is the airwaves, which are like land sites, literally frequency sites on the radio and TV spectrum.
The reductionism of "market demand" to mean only "user costs," as distinct from public patronage, would have precluded most of history's cultural achievements. On this basis, by the way, there also would have been no armies or navies, or public health, education or even transport or other sectors customarily in the public domain, along with most scientific research and religion.

The idea that all "users" should pay for the costs of what they "use" flies in the face of the idea of governments providing services on the basis of what society needs. The less affluent need medical care, if only to prevent pandemics from spreading. Society is better off with culture whose costs fall on the government as defrayed by taxes on wealth. This has been the case for thousands of years, and the idea of privatizing hitherto public functions is a much more radical position even than socialism, to say nothing of the idea of a mixed economy in which governments shape market incentives.

SS: In essence, you are saying that wealth has divested itself of its traditional responsibilities to support public-sector activities.

MH: The urban financial crisis resulting from Pres. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (including his slash in capital-gains taxes) has drastically reduced local funding for the arts and culture. Less noticed is a parallel development, the deterioration of social responsibility felt by wealthy families for cultural philanthropy. Now that it pays less, they have little economic or social incentive to finance the arts.

In countries spanning the world from time immemorial, anthropologists have found a precondition of wealth to be a spirit of open-handedness. As society's surplus, wealth has been associated with a fiduciary aspect to manage the economy in the interest of long-term growth. The breaking of this responsibility is what is so radical about today's economic privatizers and the financial interests behind the anti-government doctrines of free enterprise. Even the 19th century's great robber barons believed they had an obligation to subsidize culture. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller endowed rich foundations. Although they made the working lives of their employees miserable and degraded their living conditions, at least the leading magnates of most cities could be depended on to fund the local symphony orchestra and art museum or "palace of culture," as well as a wing of the municipal hospital or, on the national scale, medical research foundations.

This no longer is the case. The traditional pattern of giving has yielded to commercial sponsorship promoting a mass consumer culture. Instead of people drawing their thoughts and vocabulary from dramas involving the highest human ideals, many parrot the phraseology of commercials. Advertising jingles replace music, and the frenetic visual montage of advertising and computerized movies replaces the leisurely pacing of the classic drama and cinema.

The mental condition analogous to global warming is an "attention-deficit" culture based on commodity addiction. Attracting and absorbing an audience's attention is best done by making it nervous or worried. The pacing of modern films is much faster than older ones, more frenetic, largely because the new directors come out of working on TV commercials. There is so much information to be digested that it appears as a raw mass of facts with so little context of cause and effect that the only relationships that most people are able to see are simple correlations. They often get cause and effect backward, a state of affairs that allows politicians and special interests to manipulate voters and propose solutions to problems that only make them worse.

The same tactic is reflecting in the saying that "defense lawyers pick juries." Lawyers exclude the most highly educated and trained members of the jury pool, preferring people they think can be most easily manipulated and distracted from the actual character of the crime or law suit, and most subject to character assassination. Just as lawyers hire professional "profilers" to help them anticipate the responses of jury members, commercial sponsors hire accountants to take polls. The idea is to aim mass culture at the age group most susceptible to marketing--teenage boys and girls, and young adults. Cinema and other profit-seeking culture now aims at the teen market, not to shape them into adults but simply to play on their ideas of conformity to persuade them to buy products.
The problem here is that any kind of regulation is controversial--the abusers being regulated always have what the media call "their side of the story." Both sides are presented as if they are equally viable, just as in court the guilty party always has a lawyer presenting his or her side of the story. But one side almost always is lying, exaggerating, misrepresenting or diverting attention from the real issue. The media should help people see through the rhetorical cover stories and false logic. Instead, they tend to present narrow perspectives without helping to clarify the big picture.
SS: It doesn't help that the media is right wing. Even a conservative like Pat Buchanan admits that no one who is serious can truly believe the media is liberal.

MH: It is no secret that the large communications monopolies are right-wing. This is only natural, as their main threat is government regulation or the enforcement of the public-interest legislation which remains on the books. This alone would give a right-wing slant to network news, as it has given to radio hate-talk shows.

The political power of advertising to be mobilized to promote right-wing political doctrine was demonstrated recently by the Republican campaign to mobilize "consumers" to write CBS to oppose its docudrama on Ronald Reagan. If the political right does not think that treatments of its heroes and policies are suitably hagiographic, it brings pressure on the commercial sponsors to withdraw. This forces the networks to cancel the show. In that was organized Republicans, masked as consumers, have brought pressure.
Locally, listeners can intervene to ask that radio licenses be cancelled if their owners have not lived up to the public-interest commitments that remain on the books.

It is as if the federal government is being stripped down, left only with its obligation to pay interest to bondholders, to bail out savers (that is, speculators) and to lobby for the large campaign contributors. The fact that this basic change is not being discussed in the major public media themselves attests to the powerful economic force behind this dropping of traditional ideas of the role of government and the public sector.

This is just the inverse of what culture traditionally promoted. The function of culture traditionally has been to deal with the most important spheres of life, that of creating personal values (including mobilization for war, to be sure). It dealt with basic socialization issues to shape personality, and specifically to promote altruism. That is why so much art was linked to religion. Instead of seeing a moral, active personality actuating itself through labor, the mass consumer personality is that of passive conformity and escapism. Today's mass consumer culture encourages consumption and narcissism and promotes self-indulgence. There is a tendency to dumb down culture to the most common denominator in order to turn audiences into extroverted brand-name consumers.
The broadcast is turned into an obstacle course making viewers and listeners wade through an underbrush of ads in order to get to hear what they want to learn about the news.

Behind these dynamics lie the economics of privatization, which the World Bank and IMF have demanded since the 1980s. Thatcherist privatization policies are now a condition for loan rollovers. Governments that refrain from privatizing their telecom and other sectors are threatened with chronic financial crises.
Back to top

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanspaceman wrote:
the attempted US coup is still the most explosive to me, personally. A vital part of history that needs to be preserved.

If you mean the alleged coup attempt of 1933, yes it would be better to have the facts more clearly in the open, but the whole thing smells of a scam. The only question which remains in my mind is over whether or not FDR was overtly, consciously a part of the scam (as some have charged) or whether it was a genuine attempt to pressure FDR which brought some results. Was it an attempt to rig up FDR's credibility as a wealthy "outsider"? Or was it an actual effort to push FDR into accepting some changes in plans? That's where I remain undecided.

The man who was allegedly "recruited" by Morgan and DuPont to head the would-be coup, General Smedley Darling Butler, was already known by early 1932 at the latest for his charges that "I've seen hundreds of boys from the cities and farms of the United States die in Central American countries just to protect the investments of our large corporations." (Jules Archer, THE PLOT TO SEIZE THE WHITE HOUSE, p. 123).

Now it's really hard to believe that someone who talks this way would be recruited a year later to carry off a Right-wing coup against FDR by such well-informed big boys as Morgan and DuPont. There were plenty of Right-wing generals in the US Army who would have been happy to plan such a coup and it sounds silly to imagine Butler being chosen as the one to take the lead. This was definitely meant to fail from the onset.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
In all discussions about economic justice, the fallback is Stalin's and Mao's 100 million killed, which some critics argue is a number cooked up by Goebbel's Nazi propaganda office, then repeated by the US media systems (Hearst and other writers) during and after World War 2, when the Cold War needed some emotional fuel to get off the ground.

The hundred million story seems to derive more from Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It pretty well got off the ground with the LETTER TO THE SOVIET LEADERS where Solzhenitsyn announced that:

In addition to the toll of two world wars, we have lost, as a result of civil strife and tumult alone--as a result of internal political and economic "class" extermination alone-- 66 (sixty-six) million people!!! That is the calculation of a former Leningrad professor of statistics, I. A. Kurganov, and you can have it brought to you whenever you wish. I am no trained statistician, I cannot undertake to verify it; and anyway all statistics are kept secret in our country and this is an indirect calculation. But it's true: a hundred million are no more (exactly a hundred, just as Dostoyevsky prophesied!), and with and without wars we have lost one-third of the population we could now have had and almost half of the one we in fact have!
--Alexander Solzhenitsyn, LETTER TO THE SOVIET LEADERS, p. 30.

For awhile I wasn't even certain if this Kurganov person existed, but I have since been reassured that at least such a person was real. In any event, nothing of the sort is at all consistent with the demographic data on the Soviet Union which has become available since 1991, especially not when compared with that of Czarist Russia and Yeltsinite Russia:

Year__________Deaths per thousand among the population

All of the data for this and related matters can be found in:

R.W. Davies, Mark Harrison, & Stephen Wheatcroft, THE ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOVIET UNION, 1913-1945;

The comment by Solzhenitsyn about "just as Dostoyevsky prophesied" relates to Dostoyevsky's novel THE POSSESSED which does have a few scenes in it which refer to "chopping off a hundred million heads."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 9
Location: uk

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:19 am    Post subject: tazer Reply with quote

deleted for being erroneously placed

Last edited by radicaleftcharlie on Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wrong thread, radicalleftcharlie?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 9
Location: uk

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:27 pm    Post subject: yep Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 9
Location: uk

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:47 pm    Post subject: klein Reply with quote

naomi klein does mention coups all over latin america in her democracy now interview. i havent read the book and i havent read all you have all said as i am lazy. but i hope to get to know where you are all coming from as time elaspses loops and diverts itself. if oyu know what i mean, if you do could you let me know what i mean?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:22 pm    Post subject: Re: klein Reply with quote

radicaleftcharlie wrote:
naomi klein does mention coups all over latin america in her democracy now interview. i havent read the book and i havent read all you have all said as i am lazy.

Perhaps, but at least you're an honest lazy person.

There were a number of assassinations, attempts, coups and attempts, mostly for the ghastly heinous crime against humanity of nationalizing while non-white.

Americans and Brits have this rather irrational fear when non-white peoples nationalize industries. For example, PM Massadeq in Iran attempts to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and the UK go mental. We're talking 1958 here, other than Sainsbury's, Harrod's and the pubs, what wasn't nationalized in the UK? The auto industry (British-Leyland, Astin-Martin, Jaguar, Land-Rover, MGB, Triump etc), the aerospace, defense, ship-building, and telecommunications industries, natural resources (although I'm not sure about BP), the rail lines, air lines, and everything else was nationalized. So why get upset if Iran decides to nationalize its industries?

King Faysal II in Iraq tries to nationalize the Anglo-Iraqi Oil Company and he gets assassinated, then General Qasim (god love the poor dumb bastard) was too stupid to understand why Faysal got offed, so he gets assassinated.

Then there's the democratically elected president of Somalia (whose name escapes me) who gets assassinated because he won't sell oil rights to Amoco, Texaco, Chevron and Standard Oil (now BP), and Muhamed Barre is installed as puppet dictator.

Allende in Chile is assassinated as he attempts to nationalize industries there (including the oil industry).

Castro tries to nationalize the sugar cane fields (among other things) so that the workers can get pay increases from $0.03/hour to $0.12/hour like workers in other Latin American countries (the US minimum wage is $0.90/hour at the time), and the US goes ballistic and spends $100s of millions over the next 50 years to assassinate, overthrow or punish him with economic sanctions.

This site, [url= http://www.zompist.com/latam.html]Latin American Interventions[/url] quite nicely and accurately lays out US invasions, coups and assassinations in Central/South America for the last 150 years.

Attempting to tax, or actually levying taxes on US corporations is deadly. Thinking about taxing US corporations is not so deadly (you just get overthrown instead).

At this point, because of the US conflict in Iraq, and because comparisons have been made with Vietnam, we might want to ask, would Vietnam be better off today had the US won?

The answer is a resounding "No." Vietnam is much better off today under communism.

If anyone desires proof, then I offer the following:

1) El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua have been under US stewardship for nearly 150 years.

2) Vietnam has been under communist rule for 32 years, since the fall of Saigon in 1975.

3) Despite economic sanctions levied on Vietnam by the US, the Vietnamese have managed to surpass the standards of living in El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua (see the UN HDI Scale).

4) The Vietnamese accomplished that feat in 1/5th the time.

5) For the last 10 years or so, the Vietnamese economy has been humming along with a growth rate of 8%-10% while the economies of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua are mired in nothingness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

radicalleftcharlie wrote:
i havent read the book and i havent read all you have all said as i am lazy.

I leafed through it in the bookshop. In the UK it's a giant yellow monster (bright yellow dust jacket, plain bold black text on the cover). I feel like I picked up all her main points from all her interviews...it looks decent, but I'd rather wait for the paper back. And, it's everywhere, at all the major bookshops and being displayed pretty prominently.

I know she doesn't go all the way and say 9/11 was an inside job (along with other orchestrated events), and that's an admitted shortcoming, but getting left thinking people out of the fog of "the government is too incompetent to pull any of this off" is still a positive thing. It's in the right direction.

Yossarian wrote:
Americans and Brits have this rather irrational fear when non-white peoples nationalize industries.

I guess there's only one way to understand it: They want it all, and they feel they are entitled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanspaceman wrote:
but getting left thinking people out of the fog of "the government is too incompetent to pull any of this off" is still a positive thing. It's in the right direction.

It isn't in the right direction, it's quite damaging. The government is "too incometent to pull any of this off."

Who would seriously believe that all 5.25 Million government employees were involved? Or that even 1/10th were involved?

It's beyond the capability of government, but it is certainly within the capabilities of a small group of people who wield power and are capable of controlling or exerting influence at key positions in various agencies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.