Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Category: ENGLISH (Page 1 of 27)

There a few posts written in English

Evil

A tortoise named Timothy was found by Captain John Guy Courtenay-Everard on HMS Queen in 1854. Serving as a mascot throughout the Crimean war, Timothy was the oldest veteran of that war when she died in 2004. {In spite of the name, Timothy was a female]
Roughly quoted from Wikipedia as at 28/10/24

Timothy was obviously treated very well by her English owners. Let us at least be grateful for that.

As Jeffrey Sachs points out in a long but extremely interesting interview, European nations (and their American offshoots) have been at war with each other ever since the early middle ages. We have an attitude problem, it would seem. Look, instead, to Confucius, he suggests: The Chinese were basically peaceful until the odious British opium pushers turned up on their doorstep.

We could be peaceful too. After all, most of us who cast our ballots every few years don’t want wars. Jeffrey Sachs maintains that humans are not inherently evil, just misguided. We have been ill-advised by our own philosophers, he explains. We need to change tack, change priorities. And we need to do so in a jiffy. The heading of the interview I am referring to – and I shall repeat the link for good measure – is “Tell Your Government – Stop These Wars”.

See not least what he tells us about how the USA, with monumental hubris, has left the various nuclear arms control agreements. It is truly terrifying.

Now the Crimean war (1853-1856) was just one of innumerable futile wars waged under the pretext of “maintaining the balance of power”. In practice this meant that gentlemen of a certain class scuffling for ascendency at the national level and beyond, forced their defenceless subjects to sacrifice their lives on battlefields for principles that had nothing to do with domestic prosperity and well-being, principles that were in effect bunkum.

And this is still going on, except that now women of a certain class are also … I am tempted to use a vulgar expression, but I think my point will be understood without it.

Back then, most leading minds of the day did not even think to question the justification of triggering a bloodbath to prove that my daddy is bigger and stronger than yours. Just think how misguided we were! Do you think we are any less misguided now? What will people say of us a hundred years hence, assuming that the human species is still around then.

All this writhing in serpents’ nests to get to the top ultimately runs in tandem with a corresponding race to the bottom, morally. Who is willing to commit the most abject of crimes. Which nation has the least regard for international law and humanity?

We have witnessed, on the cusp of WWI, the Armenian Genocide, on the cusp of WWII, the Holocaust, and on the cusp of WWIII, the Palestinian Genocide.

One of the dangers of this race to the bottom is that when our governments are complicit in such ghastly acts, when our governments disallow public outrage at these ghastly acts, when our governments ensure impunity for these ghastly acts, our governments are destroying the moral fibre of the societies they govern. I shudder to think of the consequences.

We are not born evil, no, but we can easily become very evil, indeed, as we see in the film “Investigating war crimes”.

Tortoises do not become evil.

To Joe Biden and Keir Starmer and their ilk

I am sick to the soul from seeing this
which the West condones, and I cannot bear ...
I live in the West
I cannot bear
Being part of the West that is condoning this.

What can we say to the dying?
When they ask, why are you killing us?
I live in the West
Was this done
in my name? In our name? murder to satisfy you?

Do I want to live in the world of the West?
Or will I accept with relief its self-immolation
for "Democracy"
(for hypocrisy)
while you and your ilk lord it over the world

***
Take your lying silver tongues and
Your venomous Rule of Law
Plant them into your fragrant backsides
May they do there their lethal work

This you must see


And everybody you know must see it.

Much is surely known to most of us. But the second half of the film contained information that was new to me.

Dealing with controversy

How you and I handle disagreements depends on how much the issue at hand means to us and on our surroundings. Most of us are reluctant to offend, to stand alone in a school yard at the start of life, to be excluded from the graveyard at the end of it. Cowardice, perhaps, but on the other hand, is it not wise to avoid being too confrontational? I have just these past few days found myself in a situation where I have had to have a good, long think.

Some issues mean so much to us that we are willing to lose friends, maybe even break with family. We might be willing to risk being ostracised, fired from work or kicked out of college. If I found myself living in the equivalent of a KKK community, for instance, would I not have to try to induce change?

My political education started when, as a small child, I was traumatised by the film “How to Kill a Mockingbird”. I took consolation in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” which I read and reread a great many times, before I went on to Les damnés de la terre by Franz Fanon and Venas abiertas by Eduardo Galeano. That did it! Racism became, and is still, truly anathema to me.

Before I continue I should remind you that there is no such as thing as race within the human species. Look it up if you doubt my words. There are, however, differences in skin colour, religion, customs, etc. And since time immemorial, I suppose, powerful tribes – and later, powerful nations – have oppressed less powerful tribes/nations using pretexts such as the skin colour, religion, customs, etc. of the oppressed. The word “racism” should be understood, then, roughly as “ethnic exclusivity”.

We’re still at it!

So, back to my situation of these past two days: Is Zionism racist? Interestingly, I find no brief definition of Zionism online. Britannica, for instance, cleverly evades the ticklish matter of ethnic exclusivity. The clearest and most poignant answer comes from Israel itself, from the human rights organisation Btselem. If anybody deserves donations, Btselem does, donations and medals for bravery. Take a look at the short video https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/, while you’re at it.

So yes, Zionism is racist in its very essence. Far from all Israelis are Zionists, however, and far from all Zionists are Jews.

I once spent three years in a wonderful school in New York. My former classmates still stay in touch, send each other hurricane condolences, comments and greetings of all kinds. We have, naturally, all been taught to deeply revere the memory of Holocaust. So deeply have we revered it that we never mention Palestine or, for that matter, Israel. It has been a non-topic.

Until now. The bubble broke three days ago.

Somebody wrote: “I can’t bear this! People are being burnt to death in their hospital beds.”

For 24 hours, this dramatic message was followed by silence.

Then came the first response: “I have seen how cheaply and without value the lives of people who look like me and my children and grandchildren are held by my adopted country. Our government is funding, arming and providing diplomatic cover for Israel while it breaks every Humanitarian Law and every International Law of War.”

Then came a trail of responses, amongst them my own. Some thanked the bubble breaker for her “moral courage”.

But one person declared he no longer wanted anything to do with any of us any more. After his message, there were others who urged us to leave the matter in the name of friendship.

Frankly, I don’t much care for that particular approach. Why? Well, just as we condemn the Nazis’ Holocaust, there is simply no way for me to not condemn the ongoing Holocaust. But how?!

I offer this analogy: What if my former classmates and I had graduated in, say 1933, in Germany, yes, Germany. I had gone back to Norway, but had stayed in touch with one very dear friend by mail. Then the war broke out and Norway was invaded. In 1943, in spite of the war, I might have sent an unhappy letter to my former classmate and dear friend in Germany: “I have heard that Germany is exterminating Jews…”

How would I have proceeded? How to raise such an issue with a German friend in Germany at a time (1943) when my country is occupied by Germans whom I suspect are treating people with a certain religion as vermin?

I have never given much thought to the concept “reality” and I never understood why so many philosophers even doubt its existence. From my perspective, the thing I see gliding across the blue sky is surely a seagull, unless it is too far away to discern properly, in which case it might be a plane. It has never occurred to me that somebody else might be equally certain that it is a winged reptile or perhaps a drone, and that the sky is anything but blue. (No kidding: about eight per cent of all men are colour blind, as I learnt quite recently after having babbled at length about the beauty of a maple tree in autumn.)

And how do we rate seagulls: I think they are beautiful. There are others who loathe them because they “scream” and litter beaches. I doubt there are many people who would want to exterminate them, though.

So “reality” is truly a strange thing. Some people find it magical, particularly if they are in love. For my part, at 90 seconds to midnight according to the “doomsday clock”, I almost wish I, too, could doubt its existence.

Somebody sent me a link

“You’ve just GOT to see this!!” she wrote.

It was a 20-minute TV-programme on NRK (the Norwegian broadcasting corporation). I’ve since found it on Youtube with English subtitles: Jens Stoltenberg grilled by journalist on Norwegian television”. And yes, I think everybody should see the NATO Secretary General being grilled.

Watching a solitary young journalist taking on and humbling one of the most powerful men in the West stunned me! Not only stunned; I held my breath, and after it was all over, I more or less broke down. Two days later, the journalist had to rescue his family out of Beirut, where he is stationed as NRK’s man in the Middle East. Bombs were falling all over the place.

I had written just a couple of days earlier that there are no “real journalists” in Norway’s corporate media. I was wrong. There is at least one! He is very, very brave, braver than anybody outside Norway can imagine.

You see, Norwegians love Stoltenberg; and are proud of him. There are no longer any political parties with representatives in the national assembly who speak out against NATO, against our so-called “defence” arrangements. NONE. People do not denounce, in public, our forcing Ukraine to fight till the last Ukrainian, do not, in public, dare deny that Ukraine is a democracy. Believe me, Professor Glenn Diesen is a brave exception.

Listening to Julian Assange at the PACE hearing on Julian Assange’s detention (starts after about 15 minutes into the stream) makes it chillingly clear why truth is hiding like a battered dog in Norway as elsewhere in the West.

The Ukraine war might be an enjoyable game of chess for the top-gun boys (male and female) in Washington and London. For Russia’s neighbours, however, one of which is Norway, “war” with Russia would be the end of the world. Please note: we have never had any quarrel with our powerful neighbour; on the contrary: we still weep for the Russian prisoners who died on Norwegian soil as slaves of the Nazi occupier. We still thank our neighbour for driving the Nazis out of Northern Norway and then retiring to their own borders. Never, ever, has Russia threatened Norway!

Sweden and Russia, yes, have had disagreements since the middle ages, intermittently fighting for domination of what is now Finland and the Baltic states. I won’t go into it because it’s a long story. At any rate, issues were settled between Russia and Sweden by Peter the Great and between Russia and Finland in 1948. The Baltic states, alas, were another matter.

So we’re back to the “Cold War” – a war that, by the way, was hellishly hot, for instance in Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Central and later South America, in case you don’t know. I actually suspect that you might not know, either because you are young or because you, like me until recently, have trusted the corporate media, in which case I once again recommend The Jakarta Method and any one of William Blum’s books.

But I am procrastinating. (There is a Norwegian expression that roughly translates as “a cat slinking around a bowl of hot porridge”.) For months I have been asking myself to what extent all this US-generated mess – Gaza, Ukraine, and the prospective war on China, etc. – is due to arms trade. I have found no figures, or rather, no figures that I am able to make sense of. SIPRI is an excellent source, but it does not tell me who, precisely, is profiting from the arms trade. Is Jens Stoltenberg? Nancy Pelosi? (I have actually read somewhere that she profits in a big way) Joe Biden? Kamala Harris… ? I have asked – and still do not know the answer – how much of US GDP stems from arms production and how much of the US annual budget is spent on the military industry. How much is spent on “defence”, which by the way is a very elastic concept, “Defence”, that is, or rather “offence”. (Does “defence” include multiple secret services? The Pentagon bureaucracy? Mr Blinken’s commuting to the Middle East? In short: To what extent does the military industry govern Norwegian foreign policy, directly or indirectly. To what extent does global military industry run the world?

I cannot answer those questions due to insufficient insight into finance, business and weaponry. But there are those who can:

Shadow World, inside the global arms trade is a 2016 feature documentary. How the film team managed to coax the sources into revealing so much is beyond me. Of course, the film pre-dates Julian Assange’s incarceration at Belmarsh. Nobody would have dared make or contribute to such a film today.

The writer of the book on which it is based, Andrew Feinstein, has just published a new book, Monstrous Anger of the Guns, How the Global Arms Trade is Ruining the World and What We Can Do About It. It appears that Andrew Feinstein knows a good bit about finance and business and, not least, about the global arms trade.

Falsehood in wartime

I just recently learned of Arthur Ponsonby, (1871-1947) thanks to a political analyst, Marianne Solberg, who writes for the Norwegian quarterly Nytid.no.

Have you ever heard of Arthur Ponsonby? I certainly had not. The long Wikipedia article I have linked to his name tells us that he was opposed to Britain’s involvement in World War I.

The article does not give a favourable account of his remarkable 1928 book: “Falsehood in War-Time: Propaganda Lies of the First World War”: “[H]e claimed that the reports in British newspapers … about widespread German atrocities during the invasion of Belgium in 1914 were all lies and the German Army had behaved in a honorable and noble fashion towards the Belgian people.” This sentence is not only false, it is probably deliberately mendacious. What Ponsonby maintained was that rumours and press about enemy cruelty are often exaggerated for various reasons, and he referred to specific articles which subsequently proved to be fictitious.

Frankly, I am not much interested in WWII or WWI. Both wars were ghastly, period, and should never have happened, should have been prevented. The start of WWI was downright frivolous. But there is something to be learnt from them, I agree. Number one: Don’t frivolously start a war.

Still, I don’t agree with Ponsonby when he writes, “Whether you are right or wrong, whether you win or lose, in no circumstances can war help you or your country”. I am not a pacifist, because I do believe that the Palestinians have no choice but to try to defend themselves against the Israelis (and the US Americans), just as the Algerians had no choice but to defend themselves against the French, and the US Americans had no choice but to defend themselves against the British, (and Amazon workers have no choice but to defend themselves against their employers).

But Ponsonby also writes: “Anyone declaring the truth: ‘Whether you are right or wrong, whether you win or lose, in no circumstances can war help you or your country,’ would find himself in gaol very quickly. In wartime, failure of a lie is negligence, the doubting of a lie a misdemeanour, the declaration of the truth a crime.

Here I fear that Arthur Ponsonby raises a very important point. When your country decides to go to war, you’d better shut up if you disapprove. (Which is why I am writing this before NATO frivolously drags my country into a war with Russia, Iran or China to defend US global supremacy.)

I have read Ponsonby’s book, which is in the public domain and can be downloaded from this site, and I have found his descriptions of the psychological warfare of WWI spooky, in the sense that the very same methods are haunting us today. In fact, the very same methods have probably been used in every war since time immemorial, and probably always will be. They are wartime revenants.

Which is why we need fearless journalists to expose them for what they are: warmongering. Chris Hedges, for instance, was a fearless NY Times journalist for many years.. He still is a fearless journalist but he no longer works for the corporate media. You might want to hear what he has to say about the corporate media.

Meanwhile I have picked a few quotes from Arthur Ponsonby’s book. I am sure the author would be delighted, had he still been with us. For since the corporate news media have failed us so dismally, since journalists now broadcast rather than expose warmongering lies, there will be a WWIII unless we are able to expose them ourselves.

***

Falsehood is a recognized and extremely useful weapon in warfare, and every country uses it quite deliberately to deceive its own people, to attract neutrals, and to mislead the enemy.

Man, it has been said, is not “a veridical animal,” but his habit of lying is not nearly so extraordinary as his amazing readiness – to believe

The psychological factor in war is just as important as the military factor.

People must never be allowed to become despondent; so victories must be exaggerated and defeats, if not concealed, at any rate minimized.

The stimulus of indignation, horror, and hatred must be assiduously and continuously pumped into the public mind by means of “propaganda.”

… a Government which has decided on embarking on the hazardous and terrible enterprise of war must at the outset present a one-sided case in justification of its action, and cannot afford to admit in any particular whatever the smallest degree of right or reason on the part of the people it has made up its mind to fight.

… the indisputable wickedness of the enemy has been proved beyond question.

At the outset the solemn asseverations of monarchs and leading statesmen in each nation that they did not want war must be placed on a par with the declarations of men who pour paraffin about a house knowing they are continually striking matches and yet assert they do not want a conflagration.

Agents are employed by authority and encouraged in so-called propaganda work.

With eavesdroppers, letter-openers, decipherers, telephone tappers, spies, an intercept department, a forgery department, a criminal investigation department, a propaganda department, an intelligence department, a censorship department, a ministry of information, a Press bureau, etc., the various Governments were well equipped to “instruct” their peoples.

When war reaches such dimensions as to involve the whole nation, and when the people at its conclusion find they have gained nothing but only observe widespread calamity around them, they are inclined to become more sceptical and desire to investigate the foundations of the arguments which inspired their patriotism, inflamed their passions, and prepared them to offer the supreme sacrifice.

  • There is the deliberate official lie, issued either to delude the people at home or to mislead the enemy abroad;
  • There is the lie heard and not denied, although lacking in evidence, and then repeated or allowed to circulate.
  • There is the mistranslation, occasionally originating in a genuine mistake, but more often deliberate.
  • There is the general obsession, started by rumour and magnified by repetition and elaborated by hysteria, which at last gains general acceptance.
  • There is the deliberate forgery
  • There is the omission of passages from official document
  • There is deliberate exaggeration,
  • There is the concealment of truth, which has to be resorted to so as to prevent anything to the credit of the enemy reaching the public.
  • There is the faked photograph
  • There is the cinema

Atrocity lies were the most popular of all,

There are lies emanating from the inherent unreliability and fallibility of human testimony. No two people can relate the occurrence of a street accident so as to make the two stories tally.

There is pure romance. Letters of soldiers who whiled away the days and weeks of intolerable waiting by writing home sometimes contained thrilling descriptions of engagements and adventures which had never occurred.

There is official secrecy which must necessarily mislead public opinion.

… the assistance given in propaganda by intellectuals and literary notables. They were able to clothe the tough tissue of falsehood with phrases of literary merit and passages of eloquence better than the statesmen.

War is fought in this fog of falsehood, a great deal of it undiscovered and accepted as truth. The fog arises from fear and is fed by panic. Any attempt to doubt or deny even the most fantastic story has to be condemned at once as unpatriotic, if not traitorous.

Our prompt entry into the European War in 1914 was necessitated by our commitment to France. This commitment was not known to the people; it was not known to Parliament; it was not even known to all the members of the Cabinet. More than this, its existence was denied.

It will be remembered that the [secret] conversations which involved close consultations between [French and English] military and naval staffs began before 1906.

The revelations as to the complicity of the Serbian Government in the crime [assassination of the Archduke] did not appear till 1924, when an article was published entitled, “After Vidovdan, 1914,” by Ljuba Jovanovitch, President of the Serbian Parliament, who had been Minister of Education in the Cabinet of M. Pashitch in 1914.

  • This makes it clear that the whole [Serbian] Cabinet knew of the plot some time before the murder took place; that the Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior knew in which societies it had been prepared; that the frontier guard was deeply implicated
  • No official instruction was sent to Vienna to warn the Archduke.
  • The Austrian Government, in its ultimatum, demanded the arrest of one Ciganovitch. He was found, but mysteriously disappeared.
  • Printzip, a wild young man who was simply a tool, actually committed the murder.
  • When he and the other murderers were arrested they confessed that it was through Ciganovitch that they had been introduced to Major Tankositch, supplied with weapons and given shooting lessons.
  • The Pashitch Government sent Ciganovitch, as a reward for his services, to America with a false passport under the name of Danilovitch. After the war was over Ciganovitch returned, and the Government gave him some land near Uskub, where he then resided.
  • That the Austrian Government should have recognized that refusal to either find Ciganovitch or permit others to look for him meant guilt on the part of the Serbian Government and therefore resorted to war is not surprising.

It came as a surprise to the Serbian Government that any excitement should have been caused by the revelation of Ljuba. They thought that Great Britain understood what had happened, and in her eagerness to fight Germany had jumped at the excuse.

The invasion of Belgium came as a godsend to the Government and the Press, and they jumped to take advantage of this pretext.

“We are going into a war that is forced upon us as the defenders of the weak [Serbia and Belgium] and the champions of the liberties of Europe”.

“Our honour and our interest must have compelled us to join France and Russia even if Germany had scrupulously respected the rights of her small neighbours, and had sought to hack her way into France through the Eastern fortresses”.

Politically the invasion of Belgium was a gross error [on the part of Germany]. Strategically it was the natural and obvious course to take. Further, we know now that had Germany not violated Belgian neutrality, France would have.

General Percin concludes: “The treaty of 1839 could not help but be violated either by the Germans or by us. It had been invented to make war impossible. The question that we have to judge upon, then, is this: Which of the two, France or Germany, wanted war the most?

The invasion of Belgium was not the cause of the war; the invasion of Belgium was not unexpected; the invasion of Belgium did not shock the moral susceptibilities of either the British or French Governments.

The accusation against the enemy of sole responsibility for the war is common form in every nation and in every war. So far as we are concerned, the Russians (in the Crimean War), the Afghans, the Arabs, the Zulus, and the Boers, were each in their turn unprovoked aggressors,

Gradually the accusation is dropped officially, when reason returns and the consolidation of peace becomes an imperative necessity for all nations.

the Peace Treaty. “Article 231. The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.”

“The more one reads memoirs and books written in the various countries of what happened before August 1, 1914, the more one realizes that no one at the head of affairs quite meant war at that stage. It was something into which they glided, or rather staggered and stumbled, perhaps through folly, and a discussion, I have no doubt, would have averted it.” (Mr. Lloyd George, December 23, 1920.)

“Is there any man or woman let me say, is there any child who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?…This was an industrial and commercial war.” (President Woodrow Wilson, September 5, 1919.)

“I do not claim that Austria or Germany in the first place had a conscious thought-out intention of provoking a general war. No existing documents give us the right to suppose that at that time they had planned anything so systematic.” M. Raymond Poincaré, 1925.

“To saddle Germany with the sole responsibility for the war is from what we already know – and more will come – an absurdity. To frame a treaty on an absurdity is an injustice. Humanly, morally, and historically the Treaty of Versailles stands condemned, quite apart from its economic monstrosities” (Austin Harrison, Editor “English Review”)

“Did vindictive nations ever do anything meaner, falser, or more cruel than when the Allies, by means of the Versailles Treaty, forced Germany to be the scapegoat to bear the guilt which belonged to all? What nation carries clean hands and a pure heart?” (Charles F. Dole.)

The Germans and Austrians were busy, not without good evidence, in accusing Russia. But the disputes and entanglements and the deplorable ineptitude of diplomacy on all sides in the last few weeks were not, any more than the murder of the Archduke, the cause of the war

Having declared the enemy the sole culprit and originator of the war, the next step is to personify the enemy.

[I]t is necessary to detach an individual on whom may be concentrated all the vials of the wrath of an innocent people who are only defending themselves from “unprovoked aggression.” The sovereign is the obvious person to choose. While the Kaiser on many occasions, by his bluster and boasting, had been a subject of ridicule and offence, nevertheless, not many years before, his portrait had appeared in the Daily Mail with “A friend in need is a friend indeed” under it. And as late as October 17, 1913, the Evening News wrote:

“We all acknowledge the Kaiser as a very gallant gentleman whose word is better than many another’s bond, a guest whom we are always glad to welcome and sorry to lose, a ruler whose ambitions for his own people are founded on as good right as our own.”

“The madman is piling up the logs of his own pyre. We can have no terror of the monster; we shall clench our teeth in determination that if we die to the last man the modern Judas and his hell-begotten brood shall be wiped out.”

The fiction having become popular and being universally accepted in the Allied countries, it became imperative for the Allied statesmen to insert a special clause in the Peace Treaty beginning:

“The Allied and Associated Powers publicly arraign William II, of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties…”

Having committed themselves to the trial of the Kaiser by a clause in the Peace Treaty, the Allies were obliged to go through the formality of addressing a note to the Netherlands Government on January 16, 1920, dwelling on the Kaiser’s “immense responsibility” and asking for him to be handed over “in order that he may be sent for trial.” The refusal of the Netherlands Government on January 23rd was at once accepted and saved the Allied Governments from making hopeless fools of themselves.

His biographer, Emil Ludwig, (‘Kaiser William II’, by Emil Ludwig.) has written the most slashing indictment of William II that has appeared in any language, showing up his vanity, his megalomania, and his incompetence. But so far from accusing him of wanting or engineering the war, the author insists, time after time, on the Emperor’s pacific attitude. “In all the European developments between 1908 and 1914, the Emperor was more pacific, was even more far-sighted, than his advisers.”

Even Lord Grey says, now that it is all over: “If matters had rested with him (the Kaiser) there would have been no European War arising out of the Austro-Serbian dispute.”

Pictures of the baby without hands were very popular on the Continent, both in France and in Italy. Le Rive Rouge had a picture on September 18, 1915, and on July 26, 1916, made it still more lurid by depicting German soldiers eating the hands.

There are two things which cannot be permitted during war. Firstly, favourable comment on the enemy,… Secondly, criticism of the country to which you belong … Suppression of opinion of this kind is all very well, but the deliberate distortion of it is a peculiarly malicious form of falsehood.

War is, in itself, an atrocity. Cruelty and suffering are inherent in it. Deeds of violence and barbarity occur, as everyone knows. Mankind is goaded by authority to indulge every elemental animal passion, but the exaggeration and invention of atrocities soon becomes the main staple of propaganda.

At best, human testimony is unreliable, even in ordinary occurrences of no consequence, but where bias, sentiment, passion, and so-called patriotism disturb the emotions, a personal affirmation becomes of no value whatsoever.

It does not occur to anyone to question photograph, and faked pictures therefore have special value, as they get a much better start than any mere statement,

The faking of photographs must have amounted almost to an industry during the war. All countries were concerned, but the French were the most expert. Some of the originals have been collected and reproduced: (“How the World Madness was Engineered,” by Ferdinand Avenarius).

The ultimatum to Serbia and the infringement of Belgian neutrality led to the widespread cry that we were fighting “for the rights of small nationalities.Apart from the minorities placed under alien rule by frontier delimitations drawn for strategic purposes and not according to race or nationality, Montenegro was wiped off the map by the Peace Treaties, although the restoration of Montenegro was specially mentioned by the Prime Minister on January 5, 1918 (National War Aims pamphlet No. 33), the British occupation of Egypt continues, the Syrians have been subjected to severe repression by the French (the bombing of Damascus), the attempt of the Riffs at securing independence led to their being blotted out, Nicaragua and Panama are being subjected to the political domination of the United States, and other instances might be given in which the struggle of “small nationalities” is simply regarded as a revolutionary or subversive move.

A war to make the world safe for democracy.” The absurdity of this meaningless cry on the part of the Allies, amongst whom was Czarist Russia is obvious. Its insincerity is proved by results. There is now the most ruthless dictatorship ever established in Italy; an imitation of it in Spain; a veiled dictatorship in Poland; a series of attempted dictatorships in Greece; something which approaches near to a dictatorship in Hungary; Turkey and Persia are both dominated by individuals with almost sovereign prerogatives, and the Soviet system is a form of dictatorship. In fact, except in Great Britain, the United States, the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland, parliamentary government has been in grave danger where it has not been entirely superseded.

A war to end war” … although every schoolboy knows that war breeds war.

Since 1918 fighting has never ceased in the world. There has been war on the part of the Allies against Russia, war between Turkey and Greece, the Black and Tan exploits in Ireland, the armed occupation of the Ruhr, war of France and Spain against the Riffs, war of France against the Syrians, military action on the part of the U.S.A.

No territory for Great Britain” … The statement that whatever we were fighting for we desired no fresh territory was frequently made. Considering that the British Empire comprised over thirteen million square miles of the earth’s surface in 1914, the statement was accepted as wise and sensible.

Now as to the facts with regard to what “fell to us” when it was all over [in terms of] Square Miles:

  • Egypt, formerly under Turkish suzerainty, became part of the British Empire 350,000
  • Cyprus, formerly under Turkish suzerainty, became part of the British Empire 3,584
  • German South-West Africa, mandate held by the Union of South Africa 322,450
  • German East Africa, mandate held by Great Britain 384,180
  • Togoland and Cameroons, divided between Great Britain and France (say half) 112,415
  • Samoa, mandate held by New Zealand 1,050
  • German New Guinea and Island south of Equator, mandate held by Australia 90,000
  • Palestine, mandate held by Great Britain 9,000
  • Mesopotamia (Iraq), mandate held by Great Britain 143,250
  • Total in square miles 1,415,929

All this territorial gain was of small comfort, I fear, for those who lost their lives in that ghastly war, for those who lost limbs, for those who lost a lover, a father, a brother or a son…

Quite an expensive archduke, that was.

───

Wilful ignorance

In Norway, we don’t hear much about the recent catastrophic floods in West and Central Africa. The first time I heard of them was when I accessed the New York Times about ten days ago.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, as it were, surveys show that Norwegian attitudes and values are changing, and not for the better, if you ask me. Now why is that, I ask you.

What are Norwegians told about the world? Well, for one thing, we are not told much about the floods in Africa, about the plight of those whose homes have been devastated, whose livestock has drowned. Yet a Duckduckgo search for “floods +Africa” will yield an avalanche of horrifying reports.

  • Do the Norwegian news outlets not check news from abroad?
  • Do the Norwegian media not care about drowning Africans?
  • Have the Norwegian media been instructed to downplay the catastrophe?
  • Are Norwegian outlets determined to stimulate “optimism”, so that people here will be sufficiently carefree to consume mindlessly.
  • No doubt, the Norwegian media are very aware of the fact that Norway, as an oil producing nation, is contributing to climate change in a big way. Has somebody whispered to them: We don’t want climate activists swarming all over the place, do we?
  • Are Norwegian journalists lousy?
  • Have Norwegian journalists been bribed?

I do not know. I really do not know. Maybe a combination of all of the above.

Having determined that Norwegian media are useless about climate change, I move on to the geopolitical scene. It is true that the Norwegian media dutifully report every day the number of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese who have been murdered by Israeli assassins over the past 24 hours (I ask myself: When Israel has killed off all the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese – will Israelis be happy?)

But the Norwegian media do not appear to have noticed Israel’s great big, black shadow, the USA, our (in)famous “ally” and “protector”, without which Israel could not have killed a fly. Not a word of criticism will you hear or see against big brother.

What about our so-called “Pension Fund“. Does it invest in genocidal Israel?

What about the Norwegian arms industry? Say, “Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace” – which produces NASAMS, among other instruments of death. We hear virtually nothing about the company, which most Norwegians proudly associate with the invention of Krag-Jørgensen rifles. This is how they present themselves in Wikipedia: Hard-working labourers. But are they making loads of money these days? Are they making more money now because of Ukraine … and Gaza… and Lebanon … Is Jens Stoltenberg a shareholder of Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace? Are his children? What about our prime minister?

Why aren’t our news media answering any of these questions? Why aren’t they at least asking these questions?

Why did they not tell us the truth about Ukraine? What exactly does “news media” mean? His Master’s voice?

We need real journalists!

***

Addendum of 28 September:

It has come to my attention that the Norwegian quarterly Ny Tid has indeed raised some of the questions I pose above. The article Oljefondet inn i kapitalismens mørke written by Øyvind Andresen for the quarterly’s 1 September edition informs us that our so-called “Pension Fund” has invested 13.6 billion USD in 50 companies that profit directly from the occupation of the West bank. Of that amount, Israeli banks that have helped fund illegal settlements have received 5 billion USD. Øyvind Adresen’s source is Don’t buy into the Occupation, which I cannot access now, as the website turns black when I open it.

The “Pension Fund” also invests heavily in companies that sell arms to Israel (p. 14, table 3 of the linked report). The companies in which the Pension Fund has invested so heavily, according to the report (and the SIPRI arms transfer database) are principally: Boeing, General Dynamics, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon) and Rolls-Royce.

Shame Shame Shame!!!

Information bans

In most of my posts, I indicate the sources of my information. Some sources have been more frequently referred to than others, for instance Glenn Greenwald, the courageous former lawyer who has devoted much of his career to defending free speech and freedom of information.

It was thanks to Glenn Greenwald that I learnt about the Uhuru Movement, which is led by the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP). I smiled when he spoke of them. So they’re still around, I thought, sending a sympathetic thought to them. According to Greenwald, their leaders are now in their seventies and eighties. Back in their heyday, Malcolm X and his ilk were considered slightly ridiculous, but they undoubtedly contributed in a big way to black pride, and in its wake black self-assertion and demands for civil rights.

Now their leaders have just been tried and acquitted on charges of acting as agents of the Russian government to spread pro-Russian propaganda within the USA, because they are as opposed, still, to US militarism, as they were back in the days of the Vietnam war. However, they have been found guilty of conspiring to sow division in American politics. Glenn Greenwald retorts: “I had always thought the purpose of the free speech clause and free press was to create division by challenging things that the government was saying.”

Yes, Glenn Greenwald is undoubtedly an important figure in the US press landscape. Not only there! Europe is a greatly discredited appendage to the “Democratic” USA, and everything that goes in Uncle-Sam-land is copied over here. UK subservience, in particular, is striking. They have no “first amendment” in the UK, and dissident journalists have long been subjected to regular harassment. The recent arrest of Richard Medhurst under Section 12 of the draconian Terrorism Act, however, is not the culmination of UK suppression of a free press, but augurs what many independent reporters warn is incipient totalitarianism.

If soft power and gentle indoctrination fails, harsher methods must be employed, it seems, cf. “1984”.

The banning of Tiktok and of RT are, on the face of it, of a different nature. After all, there is no doubt that Tiktok has Chinese owners, and that RT is funded by the Russian government. I put to you though, regarding Tiktok:

  • The USA is not at war with China.
  • If all companies owned by US, EU or UK citizens were banned in, say, all BRICS countries, I don’t think the USA would be happy.
  • I understand that Tiktok’s software is open source. It can therefore easily be monitored. Tiktok has complied with all US demands, including the banning of all discussion regarding Bin Laden’s post-9/11 letter to the American People.

and regarding RT:

  • True, the USA is at war with Russia, but is that not all the more reason to understand the “enemy’s” rationale and position?
  • RT is not the wolf that ate little Red Riding-hood’s grandmother. It does not pretend to be anything other than an outlet funded and controlled by the Russian state. Anybody who reads RT is fully aware of what he or she is reading.
  • I find, as a rule, that if civil rights are curtailed, some people get very angry. If the powers that be tell me not to read RT news, because they fear that RT may cast aspersions on them, I might be tempted to do just that, i.e. read RT news. That is at least the case if I already suspect that self interest governs the actions of those same powers that be.

In fact, I have never been particularly impressed with RT and have only occasionally visited their site. They have been far too non-committal for my taste. I cannot remember having used them as a source, until now since the ban. In fact, I find them much improved. They are sharpening their claws.

So all in all, and to be quite clear: The problem with the USA is not the existence of the USA. It’s all US presidential administrations’ insistence on retaining total global supremacy at any cost (including to the climate and not least to the US population), their total disregard for international law, their total disrespect of “the other”, their total (psychopathic) indifference to the suffering in the wake of their decisions, and their mind-numbing hypocrisy.

Siste nytt

Hver morgen over kaffen, leser jeg NRK nyheter. Ellers abonnerer jeg ikke på norske aviser. Men for tiden logger jeg av og til inn på Press Reader gjennom mitt bibliotek, Deichman, og tar en titt på Aftenposten. Jeg trenger å vite hva slags nyheter normale folk har tilgang til.

Det er sørgelige greier, altså. Om Ukraina står det ikke stort. Av og til får landet en liten seier, og den blir alltid rapportert. Om den generelt katastrofale situasjonen langs den alt for lange frontlinjen, står det fint lite. Om miseren i det stakkars landet … akk.

Man må gå til helt andre kilder for å se baksiden av bildet som blir presentert for oss av pressen.

Under overskriften NATO’s Destruction of Ukraine Under the Guise of “Helping” demonstrerer Glenn Diesen i dag møysommelig, punkt for punkt, at Ukraina er blitt brukt kaldt og kynisk av USA med bl.a. Norge som heia-gjeng. Vi har til og med behjelpelig undertrykket kritikk av NATOs tilnærming til Ukraina-konflikten.

Les artikkelen hans! Les ikke minst kildene. (Jeg anbefaler for eksempel henvisning nr 33; pressetalsmannen fra USAs utenriksdepartement får det til å gå kaldt nedover ryggen min. De visste – helt fra starten av visste de – hva som kom til å skje med Ukraina.)

Ingenting av det Glenn Diesen omhyggelig dokumenterer får vi så mye som teften av i vanlig norsk presse. Akk. Ikke i andre NATO-lands presse heller, tenker jeg.

Fra Gaza melder NRK daglig om antall meldte drepte, og der står Norge i litt av en særklasse, pussig nok. Men om USAnernes dobbeltspill der: ikke et ord. Om det faktum at Israel aldri hadde til hensikt å tillate noen tostatsløsning, og at alle fredsforhandlingene bare var skalkeskjul: taushet.

Ellers finner vi knivstikking her, bilbrann der, ras, en del om kongefamilien; mest nyheter i Norge – naturlig nok, for så vidt. Men en tysk turist er drept av en hai sør for Kanariøyene og ca. 20 liv er revet bort at flommer i fastlands-Europa.

Men dog: Om Myanmar leser vi at dødstallet etter uvær har steget til 226. Tenk det, Hedda. Vi bryr oss om Myanmar.

Men så brukte jeg Press Reader for å ta en titt på New York Times. Denne en gang så imponerende formidleren av nyheter og analyser er nå langt på vei blitt et talerør for makthaverne i det Demokratiske partiet. Denne siste setningen var en påstand, ja, én jeg ikke en gang har tenkt å begrunne her og nå, kanskje aldri, for det har andre gjort langt bedre enn jeg noen sinne kunne klare. Glenn Greenwald, for eksempel, har viet de siste årene av sitt liv til å dokumentere den voksende koblingen mellom USAs maktapparat og pressen.

Når jeg går inn, innbiller jeg meg hva jeg vil finne. Og jeg finner det. MEN det jeg ikke, overhode ikke, ventet å finne er overskriften ” ‘Water is coming’ Floods devastate West and Central Africa” med undertittel “Flooding caused by heavy rains has left more than 1000 people dead and hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed.” Det er en lang og hjerteskjærende artikkel. Det følger også en kort video. Jeg har ikke lov til å kopiere fra Press Reader, men jeg har skrevet av det jeg anser som “moralen”, nemlig følgende setning. “Although Africa produces only a fraction of the world’s greenhouse gas emission, Africans bear an exceptionally heavy burden from climate change, according to the World Meteorological Organization.”

Det er en flott og svært dramatisk artikkel datert 15. september.

Jeg finner det interessant at den ble trykket i USA, men at Aftenpostens og NRKs folk, som utvilsomt leser NY Times, ikke fant at nyheten var verd spalteplass. Hva er årsaken, mon tro, til at en så dramatisk situasjon i vest- og sentral-Afrika ikke anses relevant for oss norske avislesere?

Nefarious NED

Is China staying Iran’s hand? Russia’s hand?

After Israel flattened the Iranian consulate in Damascus on 1 April this year, killing seven people including two generals, the world held its breath, because obviously Iran had a right to retaliate fiercely. The USA and its European vassals would then have to defend Israel. There are rumours that CIA director Burns – an intelligent man, I have heard – intervened in private conversations with the Iranian leadership. War was at any rate evaded; this time.

Next, Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s chief negotiator, and his bodyguard were assassinated on 31 July in Tehran. They were in Tehran to celebrate the inauguration of Iran’s president, Masaoud Pezeshkian, so this was not only terrorism in the highest degree; it was a de facto declaration of war against Iran. That is probably why Israel has neither denied nor admitted the assassination. Since then, the world has really been holding its breath: If Iran fails to avenge the act, Israel will be encouraged to humiliate Iran even further.

If Iran attacks, the USA will have to rush to Israel’s defence, and nobody knows where we go from there. This would be the “wider regional war” so often referred to by shuddering reporters in for instance Responsible Statecraft, But Iran is so far playing a cool hand.

As for Russia, the recent Kursk incursion, Ukrainian attacks deep inside Russia, and threatened use of long-range missiles (ATACMS and JASSMs ) against Moscow – all of which require the active foreknowledge, support and technical assistance of the USA – could easily tempt Russia to give us all a good scare. True, Russia struck the military training academy in Poltava a few days ago. The approx 300 casualties included several military instructors from NATO countries, among them – ironically – at least one Swede (cf. Battle of Poltava in 1709).

But by and large, Russia is playing a cool hand. Why?

Could it be that Russia and Iran believe that the USA is losing its grip? That Israel is its own undoing? (Europe, of course, is already a casualty of the Ukraine war.)

Or could it be that China is playing a role here? China does not want WWIII. China does not have the sort of military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about in 1961. Nobody wants WWIII, I suspect, except shareholders in the arms industry as well as elderly boys and girls who have been brought up playing war games on their computers and watching bang-bang films on their giant home screens.

Personally, I don’t think the USA is loosing its grip. Not yet. Yes, more and more people are recognising what a monster it is, with its economic sanctions, its regime change operations, its support for Zionism and with its NED, but as we all know, hating a bully is not enough. It takes more to get rid of it.

The USA does not indoctrinate its own citizens, or so they – the citizens – believe, even though they have been made to recite the pledge of allegiance every single day of their school life. Until the USA starts crumbling from within, it will continue its harassment, with military and economic interference and not least with intense internal indoctrination and external psyops.

The mainstream news is full of warfare, naturally. War is spectacularly and dramatically tragic. Economic sanctions – i.e. attempts to starve populations to death – are not as newsworthy, except in the case of Russia, because they don’t look good.

But psychological and information warfare is probably the most powerful weapon of all, and not a word do we hear about it in the mainstream media. China has decided to do something about one of the USA’s most nefarious tools, NED. In August this year the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a report that reads:

It is imperative to unmask NED and alert all countries to the need to see through its true colors, guard against and fight back its disruption and sabotage attempts.

The report should particularly be recommended to those who are upset about alleged Russian interference in the eminently “free and fair” US elections.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry report continues:

[NED] has long engaged in subverting state power in other countries, meddling in other countries’ internal affairs, inciting division and confrontation, misleading public opinion, and conducting ideological infiltration, all under the pretext of promoting democracy.

NED, as we know, is anything but non-governmental, as the report explains. It spends a great deal of US taxpayers’ money to finance opposition groups in various countries, including Iran and Russia (and,not least – mind! – Georgia).

The report’s conclusion:

Under the guise of democracy, freedom, and human rights, the United States has used NED for infiltration, interference and subversion against other countries. This has grossly violated other countries’ sovereignty, security and development interests, blatantly breached international law and basic norms of international relations, and severely jeopardized world peace…

Of course, you need not trust the Chinese, or the Russians, but can you trust the USA? Are the N.Y. Times and WaPo free to write what they please?

« Older posts

© 2024 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑