War on Humanity: economic front

2001-10-28

Richard Moore

============================================================================
    Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 07:54:02 -0400
    From: Bill Thomson <•••@••.•••>

    A RELEVANT MESSAGE FROM HERMANN GOERING, ADOLF HITLER'S #2
    MAN, ON HOW TO GENERATE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE AND ENTHUSIASM FOR
    THE MASS SLAUGHTER THAT IS WAR:
    
    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some
    poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the
    best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
    piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither
    in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
    That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
    country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
    matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy,
    or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
    dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be
    brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
    have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
    denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing
    the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

 
============================================================================
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:45:38 -0500
From: P.
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The War Against Humanity: Afghan front

On 23-Oct-01, Richard K. Moore wrote:

{ snip }

  > disgusted,

But now surprised? - it seems to be following your
predictions. No?

This is the third "war" in 10 years - why?

The U.S. has traditionally be isolationist. Why is it all of
a sudden leading "coalitions" in war after war? Could it be
that the U.S. can no longer stand alone because it can no
longer internally meet its capital return on investment
demands?

Could it be that capitalism has stalled, that
"globalization" is faltering both economically and socially
and that war is the easy ( maybe only ) way out?

How much have "investors" invested? How much return do they
"expect"? Can capitalism deliver the "return on investment"?
Is capitalist "growth" still possible?

Would the current level of belligerence exist if the
capitalist ship were sailing smoothly? Have the attacks of
Sept 11 actually thrown the capitalist "enterprise" a short
term lifeline?

Regards,

Paul P.

=============== 

Dear P.,

    > This is the third "war" in 10 years - why?

These are not like the old wars of national competition. 
From Desert Storm onward, we've been seeing the
consolidation of the globalist (NWO) regime - the
implementation of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations".

    
    > The U.S. has traditionally be isolationist. Why is it all
    of a sudden leading "coalitions" in war after war?

Isolationism had been very selective throughout US history. 
Whenever leaders felt they could gain from a war, then
they've found a way to get involved.  Public sentiment for
isolation has been useful, as when the U.S. was investing in
both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  Then when the
strategic time for intervention came, an incident (Pearl
Harbor) was arranged to reverse the public sentiment.

    >Could it
    be that the U.S. can no longer stand alone because it can no
    longer internally meet its capital return on investment
    demands? Could it be that capitalism has stalled, that
    "globalization" is faltering both economically and socially
    and that war is the easy ( maybe only ) way out?

The US made the decision not to stand alone soon after 1945,
when it established the Bretton Woods institutions, launched
the Marshall Plan, and implemented a system of collective
imperialism involving itself and Western Europe.

The globalization phase involves installing a centralized
regime to take over sovereignty from the Western nations,
and to continue imperialism on a broader, more intensive
scale.  This was never something that people were going to
accept willingly - once they caught on to what was happening.
 The 'War on Terrorism' consolidates elite power by creating
police-state infrastructures by which future dissent can be
stifled.  At the same time it launches the elite regime (via
its Pentagon proxy) into more aggressive imperialism -
tighter control over the Middle East, access to Caspian oil,
etc.  The war also establishes the principle that ongoing
imperialist adventures can be expected, under the rubric of
fighting terrorism.

To suggest that 'capitalism has stalled' misses the point. 
The whole history of capitalism has been a sequence of
episodes, where capitalism stalls, and then new adventures
are launched to provide more growth room.  That's what
colonialism, competitive warfare, privatization, etc, have
been about.  And that's what the looting of Southeast Asia
was all about.  Capitalism will only stall when it has no
more tricks up its sleeve to create another round of growth.
 We aren't there yet, and we may never get there.


   > How much have "investors" invested? How much return do
    they "expect"? Can capitalism deliver the "return on
    investment"? Is capitalist "growth" still possible?

It's becoming more and more difficult to keep the growth
machine going.  That doesn't mean it cannot be done, but the
methods are becoming increasingly drastic.  The current 'War
on Terrorism' is the most drastic we've seen since World War
II.

What is 'Capitalist growth'?  It is not simply the growth in
the overall economy.  If the big transnational corporations
and banks are growing, then the ruling elite are gaining
wealth, and they are pleased with the status of 'capitalist
growth'.  No matter that we have massive unemployment, or
that small businesses are failing, that national economic
indicators are unfavorable, or that famines are occurring in
the third world.

In the 1945-1970 era, the West as a whole was experiencing
growth by means of third-world exploitation.  When that
growth began to slow down, a narrower kind of growth was
sought by cannibalizing the Western economies and
infrastructures (privatization, neoliberalism, ...).  If the
overall pie can grow, so be it, but when it can't then
elites start taking a bigger piece of whatever pie there is.
 The capitalist imperative is: 'Ruling elites must prosper'.
 Societies are managed so as to satisfy this imperative. 
Everyone else can be sacrificed, whether it be through
unemployment, poor living conditions, being killed in
combat, or being the victim of genocide or famine.


    > Would the current level of belligerence exist if the
    capitalist ship were sailing smoothly? Have the attacks of
    Sept 11 actually thrown the capitalist "enterprise" a short
    term lifeline?
   
The capitalist ship can never sail smoothly for very long. 
Within any given context, growth must eventually run out,
just as a given balloon can only be inflated up to a certain
point.  To grow further, the context must be altered, just
as a bigger balloon would be needed.  Yes. Sep 11 threw an
economic lifeline, but there is nothing new about that.  The
'war on terrorism' is simply the latest in the sequence of
growth-creating tactics that extends back to the beginning
of capitalism.

What is unique about this latest tactic is the fact that it
establishes the final, ultimate capitalist regime.  On the
domestic front, a police state apparatus is being set up so
that dissent can be suppressed. On the global scene, we see
a police state on a grander scale.  Just as the cops can
break into your house without telling you or giving a
reason, so can the elite stormtroopers send cruise missiles
or special forces wherever they see fit.  'Terrorism' is
really a code word for 'opposition to the elite regime'. 
This becomes rather clear when we hear officials saying that
terrorists seek to 'sabotage the global economy', and the
best way to fight terrorism is to keep the economy going. 
Thus opposition to the capitalist agenda becomes equivalent
to terrorism.  The target of the stormtrooper contingent is
currently the Taliban and the population of Afghanistan. The
target of the police-state contingent is primarily the anti-
globalization movement.

-- 

============================================================================
Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance 
email: •••@••.••• 
website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org
content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/

    "A Guidebook: How the world works and how we can change it"
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/

    A community will evolve only when
    the people control their means of communication.
            -- Frantz Fanon

    Capitalism is the relentless accumulation of capital for the
    acquisition of profit.  Capitalism is a carnivore.  It
    cannot be made over into a herbivore without gutting it,
    i.e., abolishing it.
    - Warren Wagar,  Professor of History, State University 
      of New York at Binghamton

Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT 
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.
============================================================================

.

Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com