Posts Tagged ‘Crimes Against humanity’

Unexamined, Unequitable: 9/11/73

September 14, 2013

I do not just believe in Systems of Thoughts but also in Systems of Mood. For example if one installs oneself in a mood of indifference, cruelty, or inequity, that mood, by affecting all of one’s neurochemistry, will pervade all of one’s mental system. This holds not just within individuals, but for entire superorganisms: societies. Logic is punctual, moods are global, they tweak all logics.

Charles Blow contemplates theOccupy Wall Street Legacy, and strikes an optimist note:“The rich have recovered, but the rest still struggle. This cannot long stand.” Yes, the people should stop struggling, and just humbly submit to their Lords before the latter get real angry, as they did on 9/11/1973. That’s when the legal government of Chile was assassinated, and replaced by a made in USA neoconservative butchery.

Major USA Crime Yet Unexamined

Major USA Crime Yet Unexamined

First the Chief of Staff of the army, a constitutionalist, had to be killed. General René Schneider was Army Commander-in-chief at the time of the 1970 Chilean presidential election, in which Salvador Allende won a plurality on September 4, 1970, on his fourth try for the presidency. A congressional vote was required to confirm the winner.

Allende was a Medical Doctor from the upper Chilean society. Having seen misery in hospitals, he founded the Unidad Popular (“Popular Unity”) coalition. He was minister of health in 1938, a deputy and a senator. Contrarily to what is often claimed, Allende was a socialist, not a Marxist. In personal conversations with his closest friends, he never evoked Marx. Allende lived in a mansion.

Hollande, the French president who waged war in Mali and wants to “punir le dictateur Assad“, is also a socialist. Yet he is not from the upper society and does not own a mansion.

The basic problem with Allende was that he was under the misconception that Chili was owned by Chileans.

The CIA spent 2.7 million dollars to defeat Allende in 1964, plus much more millions from Royal houses in Europe, the Vatican, Christian Democratic parties, the Catholic church of the USA, all sorts of frantic plutocrats. The money was used for what the ambassador of the USA, Edward Korry called “an enormous propaganda campaign” (American propaganda campaigns, Korry added, that he witnessed in many countries; even in Europe).

The same strategy was used in Italy in 1948, or Chili in 1970 (this time with a CIA seed of ten millions): create an anti-Socialist terror (source: Nixon’s ambassador to Chile, again).

Incidentally this shows that the concept of plutocracy is all-embracing, and that the Royal Houses are part of it. They should all be unceremoniously replaced by the Republic, and the main reason invoked ought to be, precisely, this sort of criminal conspiracies against humanity that they have been involved in. (Catalonia independencia is a good place to start!)

This is not just dead history: all those who repeat that Allende was a Marxist are still part, consciously or not, of that propaganda, that conspiracy, serving the masters.

Actually Nixon did not call Allende a Marxist. He knew better. Nixon called Allende a “bastard”, a “SOB”. Richard Nixon, the famous criminal,  decided he got a vote too. Nixon ordered that Allende would not go from quasi elected president to president. Nixon ordered the CIA to “smash that bastard” (revealed his ambassador, Edward Korry). Three Chilean generals met with the US ambassador. They informed him that the chief of the Chilean army would strictly follow the Chilean Constitution, and refuse to make a coup.

So Kissinger and Richard Helms (CIA chief) sent weapons and ammunitions to Chiliand personnel to Chili to assassinate general Schneider, October 24, 1970. Some of the weapons were sent by diplomatic pouch (without telling the ambassador). The result surprised Nixon. Full of indignation about that Washington-organized assassination, even rightist Congressmen voted for Allende, who was duly elected president.

Allende launched a program of nationalizations, in particular of USA owned banks and copper mines.  He also launched a national health program, free milk in schools, a pursuit of the land redistribution program already started under his predecessor, Eduardo Frei. Behaving exactly like the Roman Republic of old, the Chilean government limited the latifundia (large farms) to 80 hectares. That too was part of Allende’s electoral platform.

Allende brought up the lowest wages by up to 30%, while slowing inflation by a third. Fiscal spending went up from 21% to 27% of GDP. A huge housing program was launched.

The CIA convinced key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup. USA Defense Intelligence Agency agents secured the missiles used to bombard La Moneda Presidetial Palace (the film of the bombardment is easy to access on the Internet).

In light of all this, what to do with Mr. Blow’s optimism?

“The rich have recovered, but the rest still struggle. This cannot long stand,”  sings Blow. Why could not it stand? After plutocracy took power in Rome, it took more than 1,800 years for the a fully democratic constitution to return, in France in 1789 (contrarily to what Obama claimed last week, the Constitution of the USA, as it allowed for racial slavery until 1865, was not truly democratic). Interestingly, the Roman empire itself had officially returned by 800 CE. Thus democracy is more fragile than plutocracy!

Blows hopes that:“Extreme levels of inequality are politically untenable and morally unacceptable, and that eventually the 99 percent will demand better. “

Well it was unacceptable that the government of the USA would kill high Chilean authorities, just because American plutocrats owned the world’s largest copper mines in Chili. But where is the inquiry? There is a lot of flag waving on 9/11. But how many Americans know there are two 9/11s, and that, in a deep sense, both were engineered at the highest levels of the USA?

The inquiry in the death of the UN general-secretary was recently reopened, 52 years after the fact. Dag Hammarskjöld was shot down by the usual suspects (Anglo-Saxon mining plutocrats) and it was covered-up by the usual suspects (their accomplices in the USA-UK governments).

Unfortunately, instead of reopening the past to examine it carefully, right now the majority seems to be demanding that dictators be allowed to gas children in peace. Instead of asking what happened on 9/11 in 1973, the majority seems to be inspired by Uncle Vlad, the way it used to be inspired by uncle Joe.  

The economic theory in use today is, simply, wrong. First, to measure the economy, it evaluates riches, in other words, how the wealthy are doing.

Salvador Allende, president of Chili, had made a superb discourse at the United Nations, much applauded, where he explained that corporations answered to no one, and were above the law. This is why Nixon  gave the order to “smash Allende“. And Allende was smashed. To this day, how many thousands were killed is unknown.

“Eventually the 99 percent will demand better,” dreams Blow optimistically. However the only reason Martin Luther King was allowed to dream was because president Eisenhower had stood and delivered.

Ike comically said:”Earl [Warren, Supreme Court chief] wants big black negroes to sit next to small white little girls at school.” It was innocuously funny: Ike did send the army to enforce desegregation in schools in the 1950s. He did not ask Congress (against!) or public opinion (against!). The dream came after the fact.

Meanwhile in Chili, the daughters of two generals who were neighbors and good friends until 9/11 are running for the presidency. Ms Matthei’s father, Gen Fernando Matthei became a senior goon of Pinochet.

Ms Bachelet has already been president (one cannot do two presidencies in a row in Chili). She will probably win again (as her first presidency was excellent). Her father, General Alberto Bachelet, remained loyal to the Republican Constitution. He was arrested, tortured and killed. She wants to re-examine what happened on 9/11/73. So things are looking up in Chili.

Less so at that point in the USA. Hence the need for Professor in Chief Obama to enlighten the obscure masses, with basic lessons in ethics and strategy: “crimes against humanity are intolerable, repeat after me!” 

What the 66% have been demanding is that crimes against humanity be left unpunished. Why should the 66% demand an equitable society, when they don’t want to stop a tyrant who gaz children?

In any case, it’s high time for the USA to examine the murderous interference of Nixon in the completely legal government of a country that had been fully constitutionally democratic for about as long as the USA itself. And it’s high time not to forget that the same advisers who were behind Nixon (such as Kissinger and Friedman and Kaiser) were also the creators of the so called neo-liberal order… Which is neither new, nor liberal. But drenched in blood, inequity, misery, and the old tradition of killing people one cannot rob in peace.

***

Patrice Ayme

White Flag Syndrome

September 7, 2013

AUSCHWITZ PRIZE TO BE WIDELY ATTRIBUTED.

Abstract: The cultural difference between the French Republic and the European countries that collaborated voluntarily with Hitler explains their different attitudes relative to the criminal  against humanity, Assad. Obama, Kerry, Hagel are commended for pushing in 2013, exactly for the opposite of what the duplicitous, plutocratic Roosevelt did in 1939. Obama is becoming the indomitable defender of human rights. Excellent.

What’s behind the Russian led, Assad loving coalition? The same sort of plutocracy loving coalition that propped Hitler and his friends.

It’s the very fact that France and the USA are cracking down against the worldwide, tax evading plutocracy, that makes all those who have profited from global plutocracy anxious at the deposition by force of one of their own, namely Assad. It’s not just that if Assad goes, why not Kim, Xi, Putin? It’s also a worldwide conspiracy of leeches that is threatened!

***  

Why do you think Hollande and Obama are isolated about “punishing” Assad?

They are smarter! They are nobler! They have the long view! They defend civilization! They, literally and figuratively, have better intelligence about what is going on in Syria, Russia, etc. France and the USA are also the two top military powers of the West. They are also more courageous! Americans always boast that the USA is the “land of the free”, and France means “Free”.

French fries literally translates into “freedom fries”. Neither the French nor the Americans revere their unworthy masters as the Brits do.

As i said in the introduction, there is a generalized plutocratic angle. If Hollande and Obama are willing to use force, and take out a demon such as Assad, are major tax evaders next? Striking the plutocracy is essential for the Republic.

What makes France and the USA so special?

This is a vast, very interesting subject, but I am in a rush to present more arguments to destroy Assad, so I will address this subject another time. I had a full integrated essay with that inside, but people don’t have this sort of attention span. Let me just say this. For all the silly talk about “the special relationship with Britain“, the USA and France are sister republics, pretty much a unique case in history. They have the same constitution (up to details). They originated together, from the same republican process. Even more importantly, that entangled republic generated the world movement towards democratic republics all over, the United Nations and the Charter of Human Rights.

So it’s no accident they are in the lead against a mass criminal against humanity such as Assad. They have always been in the lead.  

Why is France so isolated inside Europe about Syria? 

It’s an extremely simple, but horrid, truth. Remember the 1930s? The psycho-philosophical cultures from that time persist. They were passed from parents to children to grandchildren, to great grandchildren.

Look at Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council: a Belgian Flemish politician. He suggested like a fool to negotiate with Assad, as if that had not been tried for decades. You have to ask about such a fool: what does the Belgian Flemish  tradition feel about fighting infamy, Hitler’s style?

Well the answer is that the defeat of the French army in May 1940 has everything to do with the attitude of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940.

(It’s a long story, so it will not be given here; but the Dutch and the Belgians should understand their grandparents caused the defeat of 1940; they were not the only cause, true, but their “neutral”, “pacifist” attitude is part of the causality web that produced Auschwitz. To act properly, instead of trying to help them, as it did, the French Republic ought just to have left them to the wolf, as they deserved.)

What happened in the 1930s that revolts you so much?

All European countries WILLINGLY COLLABORATED with Adolf Hitler. All of them. EXCEPT FOR THE FRENCH REPUBLIC. The French Republic was Hitler’s dedicated, relentless enemy. But that was it. The rest of Europe was, at best, supine. Denmark resisted the Nazis 6 hours (still, hundreds were killed). France fought six years. So, of course, Denmark, ended richer, in material possession, per capita, whereas France was devastated. Sweden, or Switzerland, were made filthy rich from WWII.

Wow. That’s crazy! Are you sure? They all collaborated? Why does not anyone talks about this?

There is no glory in remembering what happened. But now, it’s a warning. the only country that can talk about Assad in Europe is France. Because France knew how to talk to Hitler. With all due respect, the other European countries should come to the classroom, and be taught by their professor of practical, survivalist, philosophy, France.

That is, once they come out of the chapel where they celebrate abject, inhuman, vile, decerebrated subjugation to fascism and those prone to the worst crimes against humanity. Have you just looked at Von Rompuy’s weasel face? He looks like the most despicable treacherous villain from central casting. It’s hilarious.

What do you want Belgium, Britain, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Russia, Ireland, fascist Spain, Portugal to say? Oh yeah, we made Hitler all he could be?  And that’s why we want to negotiate with Assad, as we did with Hitler?

By the way, although ti’s usual to despise them, nowadays, Greece and Yugoslavia were also exemplary.

Can you give examples of these alleged collaboration?

Just a few examples out of many. Poland made a defense treaty with Hitler in January 1934, standing on its head the protection it was getting from its creator, France.

Britain made a treaty in 1935 with Hitler that, following Lord Keynes (UK economist and government official, object of a cult) violated the Versailles Treaty, and that the Nazis viewed as an Anglo-Nazi alliance against the French Republic. Later the ex-king Edward VIII was allowed to spy, as “Inspector of the British Forces” on the French defense system and plans, and communicate his finds to his friend Hitler (with the help of his American wife, herself a Nazi spy). The higher reaches of British society were stuffed with Nazis.

Russia and Portugal helped the Germans, and then Nazis, to re-arm secretly and unlawfully. Sweden and Norway made an “Iron Road” for the world’s best iron desperately needed by Hitler to feed his war machine.

The Swedes also licensed the 88mm gun, the Nazis’ main, and most effective anti-tank and AA gun. Russia, Italy were at war against France in 1939-1940, to help their little comrade Hitler. Giant Soviet resources fed the Hitler war machine.

Belgium betrayed the defense treaty with France by refusing to build fortifications (allowing the Panzer army to pass through unhindered in May 1940).

The Netherlands was basically a Nazi economic agent. The Irish government cried after Hitler’s death was announced. Switzerland‘s multifariously vicious roles helping the Reich, deserve a book. 

What about fascist Spain?

Hitler helped general Franco, but Franco did not reciprocate. Although Franco kept on killing millions of his republican, secular enemies inside Spain after he finished Catalonia in winter 1939, he was careful to NOT help Hitler. That made Hitler furious, and weakened him enormously: by controlling Gibraltar, which Franco refused to attack, Britain was able to keep a lock on the Mediterranean.

This also shows that all the countries that collaborated with Hitler rather than the Republic (France) did so willingly, motivated by greed, and unfathomable stupidity. We have a right, nay, a duty, to ask whether their cultures are still that mistaken, that they make a butcher such as Franco humanitarian and far sighted.

You did not mention Czechoslovakia and Austria…

Those two were complicated cases, with divided populations. The Czechoslovakian government was left out to dry at Munich when the French Republic, itself first betrayed by Chamberlain, could not serve Hitler with an ultimatum (as British PM Chamberlain had already given much of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in a spirit of negotiation; so France had to argue against both Hitler, and Chamberlain!). The fact that the formidable Czech fortifications where located in the ethnically German Sudetenland complicated everything, but Hitler’s bad faith was blatant.

Although not as bad as Assad declaring the only solution was to “liquidate” his opposition.

What about Greece and Yugoslavia?

Nowadays, it’s common to depict Northern European countries as more “moral”, and the south as corrupt. But, when it really mattered, when facing Hitler, it was completely the other way around.

Greece and Yugoslavia were anti-Nazi, and completely refused to collaborate, even though they faced annihilation. Their heroic sacrifice was not in vain. They played a crucial role in the defeat of Hitler in Russia: Hitler had to attack and invade them, losing all his (victorious!) thousands of paratroops in Crete, instead of sending them east. He never recovered these 6 lost weeks, of preciously good weather, and his lost units.

If Hitler had attacked the USSR by early May, as initially planned, there is little doubt that Moscow would have been encircled and captured, cutting Russia in two. Moreover Russian evacuations to Siberia would have been cut short. Stalin would have died in Moscow.

The vast Yugoslav and French resistance movements immobilized at least 30 Nazi divisions by 1944, many of them, elite. Vercors, in particular, allowed D day to succeed by diverting crack SS paratroop units needed in Normandy.

Why was the USA not present at Munich?

Because Roosevelt was a plutocrat in drag. More Von Rompuy than Lincoln. Starting in 1934, Roosevelt was extremely hostile to the French Republic, but he hid it successfully from the unsuspecting masses. If you assume extreme hostility to the French, you understand all of Roosevelt policies during 1934-1945, in one fell swoop. In common lore, one calls Roosevelt’s duplicity “American Isolationism”. But certainly American plutocracy was NOT isolated from Germany. Quite the opposite: it leveraged Germany.

How can you be so sure of this unusual thesis of Roosevelt’s hostility to France?

I look at his decisions, what he said, and the moods he expressed. The hostilities started in 1934 when France got upset about what she viewed as aggressive dollar devaluation, and the Anglo-Saxon’s elite friendliness to what became Nazism, first made obvious by Lord Keynes in 1919.

Can you give specific examples of Roosevelt anti-democratic plotting?

Roosevelt did nothing much to reel in American plutocrats transforming the Reich in a power-house. OK, Texaco got a tiny fine for fueling the Nazis and fascist armies in their insurrection against the Spanish Republic.

Then Roosevelt betrayed the German generals who had revealed to the USA embassy their intent to kill Hitler, and recalled his anti-Nazi Berlin ambassador, the historian Dodd. He also nominated as ambassador to London another loud pro-Nazi, J. Kennedy.

On September 3, 1939, the French Republic declared war to Hitler, and, within days an offensive by 45 French divisions was launched, smack into the Nazi “Westwall” (Siegfried lines). Hitler ran out of crucial resources within days as the Poles resisted desperately. The Nazi military situation was no good. American corporations flew decisively to Hitler’s rescue. What did FDR do to stop that? Nothing that could help the French Republic at war.

Quite the opposite. The Congress and the president of the USA, may they live in infamy, declared Britain and France to be “belligerent” and applied various, significant sanctions against them.

Said President F. D. Roosevelt to Congress, while French and Polish troops were fighting the mass murdering racist Nazis, September 21, 1939:

“But if and when war unhappily comes, the Government and the Nation must exert every possible effort to avoid being drawn into the war… this Government must lose no time or effort to keep the Nation from being drawn into the war.

In my candid judgment we shall succeed in these efforts.”

By September 21, 1939, more than 300 million Europeans were already at war. Democracy was represented by France, population 40 million, fighting more than 200 million fascists (Naziland, plus the USSR). There was nothing candid about Roosevelt, and his judgment was that, as long as his plutocratic class would stay on top, everything was fine. And that meant weakening Europe. For Roosevelt, the business of the USA was business. Business with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, that is.

Do you have more happy news?

Yes, Italian Justice just declared that Berlusconi has been in cahoots with the Mafia for at least 20 years. It has long been obvious that Berlusconi’s fortune is just his payment for Mafia money laundering. But then Toronto is been built by Calabria Mafia money (in a way unlawful in Italy; the Italians are furious).

In more happy news, the Treasury of the USA announced that the tax evasion by USA plutocrats to tax heavens is 1,375 billion dollars, a year, more than a third of the yearly Federal Budget of the USA. In other words, everything could be financed, except for the criminals who head the USA.

Did they talk about that at Saint Petersburg?

Well, Putin is himself organized crime of KGB type. He is going around stupidly claiming that the secular rebels in Damascus gazed themselves. That’s the big lie technique, dear to Hitler. In truth many Western intelligence agencies have all the details, and Putin knows they do.

Yes, supposedly there will be automatic exchange of data in 2015. It may happen because Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the USA want to stop the fiscal bleeding. The BRICS and other critters are furious, though. But like Roosevelt with France in the 1930s, they cannot say why they are really furious. Namely that all that good plutocratic money that used to flee the West towards the tax havens will be now be forced to stay there, in the West. That’s why BRICS currencies have been tumbling.

So, instead, they join Putin, and disingenuously suggest that the secular rebels gazed their own children?

Yes. They are getting very afraid that the West is finally using force to regain its destiny. They don’t like that, because they had a deal with Western plutocrats, and, without it, they sink.

They want to keep on submitting to their masters, so they can profit, as many did in the 1930s and 1940s. That is the White Flag Syndrome. If it’s hard to beat them, and more profitable to join them, adopt the appropriate mood and thoughts, while claiming you see no crime.

How does that explain the hostility of many European officials to France?

Because as I said, many come from a Hitler friendly parentage. Even more directly, many of them have their own, lesser deals with the Plutos. Many were, or will be employed by Goldman-Sachs and its ilk. They have rabid so called neo-liberal agendas, namely, they want all the money to their friends the plutocrats, and none to the welfare state (Mr. Rehn is an example; he was recently furious that France had balanced her budget by rising taxes, instead of dismantling her welfare state).

Many smaller countries are tax havens, and they collaborate with plutocrats just as their grand-parents used to collaborate with the fascists, or the plutocrats sponsoring them, in the 1930s. It’s often a question of families, just as in the Mafia (see Berlusconi; when Sarkozy and Merkel tolerated Berlusconi, they knew he was Mafia).

Britain, the Netherlands, Ireland have enjoyed great returns as tax havens. Ireland taxes worldwide Apple profits 2%. Luxembourg is little more than organized crime, etc. What they are afraid of, is that France will use more force, about taxes, and other large countries, such as Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, will follow in the breach.

Just one French nuclear attack submarine could shut down all the Caribbean tax havens, as I have long pointed out.

For example, France just forced humiliatingly Switzerland to submit to a humiliating tax treaty. Germany will be inspired. Because Britain is a major military power (that means a huge, costly military-industrial complex only second to France and the USA’s) and a welfare state, it needs revenue, and now that making Britain into a giant tax havens a la Magpie Maggie Thatcher has no future, it will need to find money, that money that fled to all tax havens, including of the European sort.

Let’s recapitulate. France and the USA are isolated because those republics are cracking down?

France and the USA are the fundamental republics. All others are imitations. The republican model was imposed on them from the outside, not by a revolution from inside. They are followers, not revolutionaries. What we have now is France and the USA imposing higher moral, humanitarian and republican standards.

It looks like gas, but it’s fundamentally about taxes. It’s about which values have imperium. When Putin claims the rebels gazed themselves by firing rockets from Assad’s territory, he is truly saying that it’s OK to be crazy, craziness is worthy. Obama was right not to waste his time visiting him. Yet, Putin has not sunk as low as most of the anti-wars in the West.

What is wrong with the anti-war protesters?

CNN showed an hysterical anti-war woman crying loudly in Senator Mac Cain’s face:”I beg you, I beg you, please, don’t bomb Syria!” She was waving an arm in the air, imploring. I admired Mac Cain’s composure. Interlocutor after interlocutor made a show of inconceivable ignorance during that Obama hating Tea Party meeting. These are the anti-war protesters for you: inhuman, irrational, ill-informed ignorami.

The anti-wars ought to be conferred collectively the Auschwitz Prize. That’s for all those who express loudly the opinion that the deliberate mass killing of children is none of their business, and not one weapon ought to be fired against the perpetrator, lest it disturb the peace. That’s sinking lower than the Nazis themselves, at least on the rhetorical level. And rhetoric is important; it’s the first order of expressed thought.

So don’t ask for whom the gas spreads. It spreads for you. And it smothers minds first.

***

Patrice Ayme