Friday, April 27, 2012

Destroying local markets; increasing hunger in the name of aid

Highly mechanized farms on large acreages can produce units of food cheaper than even the poorest paid farmers of the Third World. When this cheap food is sold, or given, to the Third World, the local farm economy is destroyed.
 If the poor and unemployed of the Third World were given access to land, access to industrial tools, and protection from cheap imports, they could plant high-protein/high calorie crops and become self-sufficient in food.
Reclaiming their land and utilizing the unemployed would cost these societies almost nothing, feed them well, and save far more money than they now pay for the so-called “cheap” imported foods.

World hunger exists because:
 (1) colonialism, and later subtle monopoly capitalism, dispossessed hundreds of millions of people from their land; the current owners are the new plantation managers producing for the mother countries;

(2) the low-paid undeveloped countries sell to the highly paid developed countries because there is no local market [because the low-paid people do not have enough to pay] … and
 (3) the current Third World land owners, producing for the First World, are appendages to the industrialized world, stripping all natural wealth from the land to produce food, lumber, and other products for wealthy nations.
This system is largely kept in place by underpaying the defeated colonial societies for the real value of their labor and resources, leaving them no choice but to continue to sell their natural wealth to the over-paid industrial societies that overwhelmed them.

To eliminate hunger:
(1) the dispossessed, weak, individualized people must be protected from the organized and legally protected multinational corporations;
 (2) there must be managed trade to protect both the Third World and the developed world, so the dispossessed can reclaim use of their land;
 (3) the currently defeated people can then produce the more labor-intensive, high-protein/high-calorie crops that contain all  essential nutrients; and
(4) those societies must adapt dietary patterns.

Invading Libya to Temporarily Save Imperialism and Theft-Capitalism

Libya broke free in 1969. Imperialists have repeatedly tried to regain control ever since. Though under imperialist embargoes and attacks much of the time, Myammar al-Gaddafi, the leader of that revolution, modernized Libya beyond the living standards of England.

Besides free education (including advanced education anywhere in the world), free health care, most adults owning a car, and providing each marrying couple a $50,000 interest free loan, large sums of Libyan money was spent to keep alive Africa’s post WWII dream of forming into “The United States of Africa.” Substantial funds were spent developing some of the smaller nations in central Africa. And Libya’s leader did all this without amassing personal wealth.

His latest proposal was to nationalize the oil companies and turn the massive profits currently flowing out of the country towards Libyan workers and the poor. These proposals were sitting in front of Libya’s citizen councils (their system of grass roots democracy) when imperialism attacked.

If put in force, she would have the highest standard of living in the world, and there would be no such thing as a “poor” person in Libya.

Ghadaffi was so revered for having gained Libya’s freedom, no ethnic group or political coalition could be found to fund, arm, train, and overthrow him.

However, under the umbrella of populist revolutions overthrowing puppets throughout the Arab world, and with the urgency of preventing such an example to the periphery of empire currently breaking free, such a group was covertly organized.

Only the most naive would believe a ragtag, poorly armed, untrained, motley mass would drive cars, pickups, and trucks several hundred miles West on a coastal highway openly declaring they were going to overthrow a government with a well-equipped and trained army.

Imperialism obviously informed this hotbed of Al-Qaeda recruits they would back a revolution to put them in power.”

A plastic gun shown to NBC reporter Richard Engle by an insurgent supposedly in battle, exposed this as a photo op by those covert organizers to gain the loyalty of the world for this assault on Libya by imperialism.

One hundred British covert operation forces inserted into the Benghazi area three weeks before their rag tag assault, quickly expanding to 350, and the man in charge of the uprising, Khalifa Hifter, having lived in Virginia, next door to the CIA for 20 years, is further confirmation.

Those insurgents were promised backing by the world’s most powerful nations for them to rule Libya. Meanwhile mainstream news, which surely has access to far more information than we do, told the world this was a spontaneous, homegrown, insurrection.

Even with NATO headquartered there, Germany recognized the moral hazard of the unjust collective assault on Libya and quickly withdrew from the coalition.

On April 1, 2011, Asia Times exposed the assault on Libya was part of an agreement between America and Saudi Arabia. In trade for the Saudis protecting America’s puppets in Bahrain and having their fully controlled Arab League vote yes on UN Security Council Resolution 1973, approving a no fly zone over Libya, America and NATO agreed to take out Ghadaffi.

The destruction of Ghadaffi’s Libya was to protect Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, and other puppet governments, from the populist Arab revolutions breaking out throughout the Middle East.

But these were only minor aspects of a much bigger problem for imperialism. Libya’s ongoing study on nationalizing all oil operations within their borders, their organization of several African countries for central banks independent of current world currencies, switching to the gold dinar as Africa’s common currency, and the selling of oil for those gold dinars.

All that, plus Ghadaffi’s outspoken efforts for true democracy within the United Nations, would lead to the overthrow of puppet governments worldwide, the potential success of the 60-year plan for a United States of Africa, and the end of theft-capitalism.

Communication superhighways are spreading truth so fast that most the leading thinkers of all nations realize this is imperialism’s attempt to keep the current populist revolutionists trapped within the imperial system.

Much of the world breaking free, in concert with the worldwide financial collapse, would mean the end of theft capitalism that we have been predicting. China, India, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, and most other nations currently breaking free, are fully aware R2P is just as much to control them as it is to control those populist revolutions.

The absolute rule, to never share technology with anyone, was broken when imperial industries moved to China wholesale

As a result of that breach in the monopolization of technology, within one more generation, much of the world will be developed. Their development automatically leads to a demand for equality in world trade and they retaining their share of the world’s production of wealth.

R2P is imperialism’s effort to head off this oncoming disaster. Imperialism is getting steadily weaker while the periphery of empire is getting stronger and stronger.

All people are good and populations of the imperial centers would never accept their governments creating such havoc across the world if they knew the truth.

An honest look at history 200 years ago is very instructive. We all know that Napoleon was a megalomaniac dictator, right? Reading the cover story of the April 22, 1991 US News and World Report, History’s Hidden Turning Points by Daniel J. Boorstin, will quickly push aside the pure propaganda, pushed in all imperialist history books, on the subject of Napoleon.

He spread many of the rights declared for all men by the French Revolution throughout Europe. Known as the Napoleonic Codes, “they are the legal basis for over thirty nations of Europe today.”

Those codes were a direct threat to both Aristocracy and the church, the power structure of the time. Thus, even as those powers were severely proscribed, and because those they had control of the universities and would eventually regain control of the media, their dictatorial powers were not eliminated.

Thus Napoleon, who can only have been worshiped for many decades throughout those 30 plus nations he liberated, are recorded by imperialist historians as a megalomaniac and dictator, the very attributes of the current power-structure promoting themselves as peaceful, free, democracies.

The demonizing of Libya today, and every other nation threatening to throw off the yoke of imperialism, as we have demonstrated above, is the exact same process under which Napoleon’s reputation was destroyed.

Just as Napoleon freed most of Europe, communications superhighways and the rapid development of the peripheries of collapsing empires is freeing the world. That is, assuming those megalomaniacs do not destroy it first.

Imperialism will probably win this round also. However, most the emerging world realizes how close they came to being free—they have China, India, Russia, Brazil to collaborate with to further develop their strength—and sooner or later imperialism/theft-capitalism will lose this struggle.