I'm back from cycling in Oregon. Maybe the most memorable moment happened in a parking lot along the Columbia Gorge (which is impossibly beautiful). A young father brought his two small children over to examine a jeep parked next to my van. "Isn't that interesting," he told his children. "Of course it isn't a real jeep. It's an imitation. See here, it has 'Willys' marked on it."
(Maybe I should translate--Willys was the once famous company that made the World War II jeep.)
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Permanent Anger Class
What would satisfy the Super Rich? What is it they want?
"Everything."
Civilization started about 7,000 years ago in China and the Middle East. In the last 3% of that 7,000 years, wealthy white men won the right to vote, followed by the remaining white men, then black men, then women. Ordinary people became the owners of land, not just tenants of a king or nation state. Social security and universal medical care were pioneered in Europe. Today gay people are winning equal rights in the United States.
These gains by ordinary people constitute a threat to the Rich owning everything. To reverse the gains, the Rich don't express anger--they fund the mobilization of a permanent Anger Class to express vulgar fears and rage for them.
On television we watch Tea Party paranoids attacking the Democrats and centrist Republicans of Nambypambytown. Teabaggers are stirred to act by Republican leaders like the former Speaker of the House who recently claimed that Obama was channeling his long dead Kenyan father (whom he barely knew) and taking revenge for the way the British had treated black Africans. No charge is too idiotic. There is little that is new in this--it's American politics as usual.
Presidents are typically attacked viciously. The Rich funded an attempt to use the Anger Class to take the government from FDR by force. Truman was labeled a pinko traitor. Eisenhower was called a communist. JFK supposedly intended to build a tunnel under the Atlantic so he could get his orders directly from the Pope. The Clintons murdered Vince Foster, the Republicans said.
The claims that President Obama was born in Kenya or that he is a Muslim fit the same pattern. The Super Rich fund movements designed to stir up the Anger Class whenever a Democrat or centrist Republican gets elected President.
Consider the history of the Liberty League and the John Birch Society. There will always be 2% or 3% of the public with heads of knuckle. With a little planning and a lot of cash, the Anger Class can be set in motion by the Super Rich, and they will gather friends and allies as they storm ahead.
The Super Rich have not gone after President Obama because his father was black, although that adds a tool useful for their purposes. The Super Rich aren't racists--they hire walking tubes of meat to do the racism. The Super Rich probably like Obama, but he has slowed their acquisitions a bit. From their perspective, the Democrats have to go in November.
What would satisfy the Super Rich? What is it they want?
"Everything."
"Everything."
Civilization started about 7,000 years ago in China and the Middle East. In the last 3% of that 7,000 years, wealthy white men won the right to vote, followed by the remaining white men, then black men, then women. Ordinary people became the owners of land, not just tenants of a king or nation state. Social security and universal medical care were pioneered in Europe. Today gay people are winning equal rights in the United States.
These gains by ordinary people constitute a threat to the Rich owning everything. To reverse the gains, the Rich don't express anger--they fund the mobilization of a permanent Anger Class to express vulgar fears and rage for them.
On television we watch Tea Party paranoids attacking the Democrats and centrist Republicans of Nambypambytown. Teabaggers are stirred to act by Republican leaders like the former Speaker of the House who recently claimed that Obama was channeling his long dead Kenyan father (whom he barely knew) and taking revenge for the way the British had treated black Africans. No charge is too idiotic. There is little that is new in this--it's American politics as usual.
Presidents are typically attacked viciously. The Rich funded an attempt to use the Anger Class to take the government from FDR by force. Truman was labeled a pinko traitor. Eisenhower was called a communist. JFK supposedly intended to build a tunnel under the Atlantic so he could get his orders directly from the Pope. The Clintons murdered Vince Foster, the Republicans said.
The claims that President Obama was born in Kenya or that he is a Muslim fit the same pattern. The Super Rich fund movements designed to stir up the Anger Class whenever a Democrat or centrist Republican gets elected President.
Consider the history of the Liberty League and the John Birch Society. There will always be 2% or 3% of the public with heads of knuckle. With a little planning and a lot of cash, the Anger Class can be set in motion by the Super Rich, and they will gather friends and allies as they storm ahead.
The Super Rich have not gone after President Obama because his father was black, although that adds a tool useful for their purposes. The Super Rich aren't racists--they hire walking tubes of meat to do the racism. The Super Rich probably like Obama, but he has slowed their acquisitions a bit. From their perspective, the Democrats have to go in November.
What would satisfy the Super Rich? What is it they want?
"Everything."
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Who Owns the World?
My oldest friend and his wife live in Canada, where Queen Elizabeth owns their house. That makes them fortunate on a planet in which only 15% of the people own land. In Europe, less than 6% of the people own 59% of the arable land. And these enormously wealthy folks get subsidies from the European Union to farm it. That's a good deal.
The world's richest person, far richer than Bill Gates, is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, who owns Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In fact, she owns lands totalling about three times the size of the United States. The humans who live on her land have two forms of tenure: freehold (a type of tenancy) and leasehold.
This situation is, of course, a continuation of feudalism. A labor parliament passed the Human Rights Act, which offers protection for inferior owners (the Queen is called the superior owner), but any future parliament has the power to repeal this protection. The injustice is not a technicality. During World War II, the British government seized eleven million acres of land while paying little or no compensation.
About 26 kings, emirs, etc., own 20% of the earth's surface. Most of the rest is owned by governments. Every inch of China, for example, is owned by the state, which leases some of it back to the people. The Cuban government owns Cuba. In Ireland, all land is owned by the nation, which took over the British Crown's feudal ownership. And so on.
The first country to encourage ordinary citizens to own land was the United States.
In many countries today written constitutions have built protections for inferior owners. It is unlikely that Queen Elizabeth will actually take control of my friends' home in Canada. What is most curious about the history of landowning-- a history of nearly everyone on earth renting living space from some king--is how, for many thousands of years, we stooped and kissed the whip of superior owners (and still do). What does that say about us?
. . . . read WHO OWNS THE WORLD by Keven Cahill
The world's richest person, far richer than Bill Gates, is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, who owns Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In fact, she owns lands totalling about three times the size of the United States. The humans who live on her land have two forms of tenure: freehold (a type of tenancy) and leasehold.
This situation is, of course, a continuation of feudalism. A labor parliament passed the Human Rights Act, which offers protection for inferior owners (the Queen is called the superior owner), but any future parliament has the power to repeal this protection. The injustice is not a technicality. During World War II, the British government seized eleven million acres of land while paying little or no compensation.
About 26 kings, emirs, etc., own 20% of the earth's surface. Most of the rest is owned by governments. Every inch of China, for example, is owned by the state, which leases some of it back to the people. The Cuban government owns Cuba. In Ireland, all land is owned by the nation, which took over the British Crown's feudal ownership. And so on.
The first country to encourage ordinary citizens to own land was the United States.
In many countries today written constitutions have built protections for inferior owners. It is unlikely that Queen Elizabeth will actually take control of my friends' home in Canada. What is most curious about the history of landowning-- a history of nearly everyone on earth renting living space from some king--is how, for many thousands of years, we stooped and kissed the whip of superior owners (and still do). What does that say about us?
. . . . read WHO OWNS THE WORLD by Keven Cahill
Friday, September 3, 2010
Manly Men
It occurred to me the other day that patriarchy has been a disappointment.
A case in point was President Obama's pledge during his campaign two years ago to wind down the pointless war against Iraq and build up the useless war against Afghanistan. Why would someone as thoughtful as Obama promise to fight a useless war? The answer: he wanted to get elected.
In a patriarchy nobody wins the highest office by pledging to end two wars at once with no victory. Obama had to promise to fight at least one war or go back to the senate. (This resembles a history story from Ancient Greece.)
Once elected, President Obama began to withdraw troops from Iraq, bringing home about 100,000 Americans. The last 50,000 are scheduled to leave by the end of his term in office. So far, he's getting away with that part of his plan. According to internet sources, Obama is secretly funding 150,000 mercenaries at triple the pay to replace the departing troops, but that would be insane.
I understand that recent Presidents have been senile or clowns or burned out substance abusers, but I'm not ready to agree that Obama is insane.
Meanwhile, despite his campaign promises, Obama has said he plans to wind down the war against Afghanistan and start bringing home troops before the end of next year. That's not manly at all. Maybe Obama plans to run for reelection wearing a dress.
If he does, I'll vote for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)