Plutocrat Charles, Following Plutocrat Keynes, Rewrites History:
Prince Charles connects climate change to the Syrian conflict and terrorism. In a sense, this is obvious, and I have been saying as much, since ever: the massive change of climate enfolding will result in billions of people dying potentially, so they will not come down without fighting.
The Egyptians had to leave the desert when it became desertic, and settled in the valleys. So it was all around the Middle East. Lush landscape, lakes and rivers, from the Mauritanian coast on the Atlantic, to the Gobi desert, through Arabia, turned into Mars (but with air and torrid temperatures).
In reaction to desiccation, civilizations became much more organized, engineered, and, thus fascist (“E Plutibus, Unum”). Or as great historian Fernand Braudel called them “hydraulic dictatorships”. Indeed hydraulics enabled agriculture, because much of the area has the good fortune to be endowed with very high, rain catching mountains (but less so the Sahara, which had to be 99.9% evacuated). The problem was to carry water from rocky mountains to fertile land (hence the first dams in Yemen, or extensive canals in Oman, Persia).
Hundreds of thousands of often Islam befuddled Syrian refugees are rushing to Europe, all too often not because they love Europe but because they want to survive. That’s a problem for all concerned.
Let say in passing that Europe should put in place assimilation structures which discriminate between those who want to learn to love Europe for real, and the rest, The USA has such structures in place. But the American ways of forced integration have escaped detection by naive Europeans. Right now, interviewing locals in Hawai’i, I can appreciate them anew. Locals don’t give a hoot about Barry Obama. what matters to them is the local football, or basketball star, then thriving: they have been completely de-politicized, all they love is greasy sugarized food, and sports, as imposed by Main Stream Media (thus their own islands are, or have been, stolen from them).
Those Syrian refugees who do not want to assimilate should be turned back. Violent? Yes. But turning back hostile refugees is a matter of survival, the same logic which animates the refugees themselves. In Islam, Europe used to be called, in the sacred texts, the “House of War”. Those who still think it is, should be imposed their own insult.
Dar al-Harab (Arabic: دار الحرب “house of war” is the term, in the foundation of Islam, referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis. It is unclean by definition. The House of War, Europe, will not become clean until it is annexed to the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam, دار الإسلام ) Its denizens are either to be converted, killed, or. Allah being most merciful, taxed exorbitantly if, and only if they are “People of the Book” (a matter of interpretation depending upon the Caliph, or the local Emir).
As the attacks in Paris show, a few fanatics with modern weapons can kill or injure 500 (and using biological and, or chemical weapons would kill much more: ISIS uses neurotoxic gases). But back to the congenital plutocrat, Princes Charles, heir of Great Britain.
In an interview with Sky News, red-cheeked apparent alcoholic Charles, said there was:
“Very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land because water ran out, their crops failed and so on. And increasingly they came into the cities, already full of Iraqi refugees. And this combined created a very difficult situation.”
He then called on the public to deal with climate change “because the conflict very often comes from movement of people as a result of not being able to survive”.
The hypocrisy there is colossal, the lying expert: the British elite, not to say “plutocracy”, engineered the Iraq War which destroyed Iraq, spawning ISIS, in part with debris from Saddam’s army. By ignoring this major fact, plutocrat Charles is lying. It is a LIE BY COLOSSAL OMISSION.
If Tony Blair’s government had joined France in opposing the invasion of Iraq by the USA, and the attendant destruction of the Iraqi State, the latter by itself a massive violation of the Geneva Convention, war criminal Bush would not have been able to proceed. Instead British plutocracy joined Bush to visit war crimes on Iraq. Where was rosy-cheeked Charles then?
The Iraq War is still enfolding. The greatest enemy of George W. Bush and his lackeys’ aggression with that idiotic war was the French Republic which singlehandedly prevented the USA to get a resolution of the United Nations authorizing war.
The USA, with the help of many in its plutocracy (including Hilarious Clinton, then a war mongering senator from New York) proceeded nevertheless, while organizing a French hating campaign. However, opposed France WAS, the situation has degenerated so much that France has now been dragged in the war she opposed (and so is Obama, who opposed the Iraq War then, albeit with much less power than Clinton had).
War is complex. Differently from the crazed psychopath Qaddafi, busy raping teenage girls, one could negotiate with Saddam who pointed out correctly that he could not understand why the USA and Britain attacked, since “we had good laws”. (Similarly, one can negotiate with the son of Qaddafi. who is much smarter, and less psycho than his dad.).
When talking about war, violence, conflict, aggression, the primitives cannot handle the complexity, and their discourses bring nothing to guide action. War is, arguably, humanity’s most complex activity.
Thus wars deserve complex descriptions (even wars such as invasions by Attila, the Avars or Genghis Khan were very complex, as the Mongols themselves were first to recognize, hence their successes in the latter case).
All and any partial description of war brings further conflicts. A very good example is the abject way the Anglo-Saxons and their lackeys describe the Versailles Treaty, following the atrocious racist, Lord Keynes, and Anglo-Saxon imperial icon.
Nazi Keynes described the Poles in the abominably racist way the soon to be formed Nazis were going to adopt. So it is correct to view Keynes as Hitler’s mentor, and always a big thrill when self-absorbed “Jews” such as Paul Krugman, adulate Keynes, Auschwitz’s grandfather.
Lord Keynes’ big economic trip was that as the Poles were hopeless lazy cretins with immoral habits congenital to their race. Europe, now deprived of its grandiose German imperial leadership, insisted Lord The Racist Keynes, would sink economically. Lord the Racist Keynes called that “The Economic Consequences of Peace”. American plutocrats and their universities cannot laud enough that piece of trash propaganda in learned guise. As Lord The Racist Keynes is anti-French, in learned, hypocritical guise, it is a bonus: one is never careful enough with these Sans-Culottes, Marseillaise singing types.
The meta teaching of Lord The Racist Keynes is that, if one sounds detached enough, one can make the credulous swallow whatever concepts are crucial to foster plutocracy. This is exactly what the future Owner of Britain insisted on: climate change caused the war in Syria, the support of the British elite for plutocrat Assad and his immensely rich family, or the invasion, and destruction, of Iraq, has nothing to do with it.
Let little people gobble this, from Australia to British Columbia, London to Singapore, South Africa to Wall Street, and Dog save the Queen (she is going to need it!) Ultimately, this sort of fables, repeated ad nauseam, become the official truth (as Hitler explained in detail). So it is that the Versailles Treaty, Anglo-Saxons insist, now followed by quite a few French anxious to please their masters, caused Nazism. An abject lie, useful to plutocrats in so many ways, they have been repeating it ever since. And one of the ways is precisely to kill the spirit of inquiry: it’s so obviously clear that the Versailles Treaty caused Nazism, as Lord the Racist Keynes said, that the subject is not worth studying: this is common wisdom among the educated, doctorate equipped elite, and those noble parrots go around repeating Nazi lies invented by Keynes, self-congratulating about how wise they are.
Thus it is that little minds learn to NOT even to ponder complex issues. (In that case not that complex: the submission of many nations of Eastern Europe to imperial Germany should be something as revolting as slavery, because it’s all what it was.)
I must admit that Paul Krugman has made efforts to exhibit how knowing better the history of the Twentieth Century enlightens the present fatal systems of thoughts ruling economics.
My own Mom is exasperated by my enthusiastic brandishment of the word “plutocrat”. She looks down on explaining so many phenomena with the notion (which even the mythical Jesus used, without naming it). There is something to it, in the sense that we need variety in life. I know some of the individuals around Obama, saw them transformed as they got a whiff of power. They were too stupid, or too moral to exploit it, so they came short on the satanic side of things (small “Pluto” factor). Yet, they were clearly intoxicated, as everybody around the White House is, by power. Fortunately my fertile imagination comes to the rescue to qualify those herds of slaves who serve, or aspire, and thus valorize power: CRATS.
“Crats” has the correct etymology: that of those obsessed by grabbing power, smelling power, basking in power (Greek “kratos” for power). It also reminds one of “rats”, animals so obsessed with cheese they would die for it, and the insult the French used to throw at fascist Germans of yore: Krauts. Let there be crats, those whom power obsesses, as they already exist, in all but name. We need to name what ails us.