The other 9/11

A date. A single day in a calendar which contains 365 of them. Nearly 10,000 of them have been recorded in human history. Yet when the date "September 11" is mentioned, most of us immediately think of 2001, when the dreadful attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon were carried out. Across the planet, the date of September 11 carries a uniform reaction.

However, there is another meaning, and another infamous historical event that finds its roots in the exact same day, twenty eight years earlier. September 11, 1973.

To most of the world, that particular date in history contains no symbolic meaning. Yet to a medium-sized constitutional republic in South America, it represents the darkest hour in their history, and a stark reality of the depths to which the unholy empire of the world will sink to ensure its dominance is guaranteed.

On September 11, 1973, General Augusto Pinochet - trained by the United States, given the green light by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, initiated a coup against the Socialist government of Chile - led by Salvador Allende. Allende's government had had a difficult time delivering on its promises of reconstruction, mostly due to an American economic blockade of the nation after Allende's nationalization of the mining industry. According to declassified CIA documents, Richard Nixon wanted to "make Chile's economy scream". The plan worked to an extent, causing significant dissidence within the Chilean army, and in particular the economics department of Santiago - mostly filled with Milton Friedman's Chicago Boys. In 1973, Pinochet seized power in a violent coup d'etat, bombing the presidential palace. Rather than face capture, Allende committed suicide.

What followed is perhaps one of the darkest chapters of the cold war - exceeded only by El Salvador, Indonedia and Vietnam in the sheer scale of brutality and mercilessness. Following his seizure of power, Pinochet rounded up Allende supporters, and took them to the national stadium. Over the next two weeks, the bloody spectacle that unfolded within that building led to the torturing of thousands of Allende supporters. The Valech Report, released in 2005, described just some of these processes:
1. Repeated beatings
2. Deliberate corporal lesions
3. Bodily hangings [suspensions]
4. Forced positions
5. Application of electricity
6. Threats
7. Mock execution by firing squad
8. Humiliation
9. Stripping down to nakedness
10. Sexual aggression and violence
11. Witnessing and listening to torture committed on others
12. Russian roulette
13. Witnessing the execution of other detainees
14. Confinement in subhuman conditions
15. Deliberate privation of means of existence
16. Sleep deprivation or interruption
17. Asphyxia
18. Exposure to extreme temperatures

This was not an isolated incident. It is estimated that anywhere from 3,000-5,000 were killed, with anywhere from 28,000-200,000 incarcerated and tortured; all this in a country that even today only possesses a population half that of Canada. All this was done with the full knowledge (and open support of) the US Government. In communiques sent to CIA Field Stations in Chile as early as 1970, Nixon & Kissinger ordered that "Allende be overthrown in a coup as early as possible".

The question that comes back is why? Why did a global superpower actively support such brutality? The answer is twofold, and (despite the accusations of some) had little to do with communism and the KGB. The first of these reasons deals with open defiance. Similar to what Chavez and Morales now do in Venezuela and Bolivia, Allende openly defied American power and corporate wealth, attempting to nationalize the mining and banking industries for the use of his people. If he turned to the KGB, it was only because he had no other option. The United States, in 1970, began an economic blockade designed to "make Chile's economy scream". Deprived of the funds of the standard loan-agencies (the IMF, the World Bank), Chile turned to Russia for help. The second of these reasons deals with the belief that what is good for the most powerful corporate empire is ultimately good for the rest of us. In one of his briefings to Nixon on the issue, Kissinger famously said "The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves". That's right; the issue of who should control Chilean resources was far to important and vital for Chilean people to decide. Kissinger's arrogance is astounding, even to this day, to the point where even Christopher Hitchen's scathing The Trial of Henry Kissinger does not go far enough in its accusations against the man.

The precedent Chile set was clear, and has resonated in American policy throughout Latin America: You must serve our interests first, your own second. If serving our interests is democratic, that's nice. If it isn't, then bring in the fascist coups that continue to serve our interests. This reputation has cost the United States dearly, leading to it being almost universally loathed throughout the developing and underdeveloped worlds. Twenty eight years to the day after the Chilean coup, this would come back to haunt them.

Disinformation and Idiocy: The Final Section

At long last, we come to the end of our little dissection of this steaming heap of an "article"

Accusation 10. Leftists want to tell everybody what to do.
They think governments should tell people what to think and what to say and what to do. Why? It's obvious. Because if government didn't do that, we might all suddenly realise what crap they're spouting!

Coming from a supporter of an administration that told us "you're with us, or you're with Bin Laden", that's a pretty bold statement. Coming from someone who, seven posts back, told everyone in the world to be Christian and uphold "traditional family values", that's EXTREMELY bold.

Again, the confusion between communism and socialism is at the crux of his stupidity. In Communism, yes; the government tells you what to do, and people don't control a government, and that sucks. As a socialist, I will openly and freely agree with that. The fundamental distinction between the two comes over who controls the government. In communism, the government controls the government. I don't care if it claims to be socialist or if it claims to be communist or even libertarian or conservative. If the people have no control over the government, it's not a democracy. The United States in 2000 and 2004 is an excellent example of this. Voting irregularities, outright fraud, and some of the dirtiest politicking seen since the time of Richard III allowed Emperor George II to steal an election not once, but TWICE. Is that any worse than someone like Pol Pot or Lenin? When it comes down to it, Bush and Pol Pot have killed roughly the same number of people. Pol Pot killed 1,400,000 Cambodians. Bush has killed 1,100,000 Iraqis, 8,000 Americans (between Afghanistan, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina) and lead to the deaths of 400,000 for his refusal to get off his ass and do something about Darfur. They're roughly the same, but Bush is an American, and therefore not as bad (at least in some people's eyes)

as i've mentioned earlier, Marxism revolves around the idea that people should control a government. Is that bad? In the eyes of conservatives, yes. Stalin and Milton Friedman had one thing in common: neither of them liked democracy. the late Salvador Allende and Tony Benn have one thing in common: They're both democratic socialists. The fundamental difference between the evils of antidemocracy and the good of democracy is that in a democracy there is always a method of removing the government. The government does what the people want. If it doesn't, it's removed.

The left doesn't want to tell everyone what to do. The left wants to tell the government what to do, and then have the government do it. Remarkable! The left doesn't want the government to tell people exactly what to think (that's the job of neocons like Cheney...murderous bastard), all we want is for people to be a bit smarter about the world around them, stop writing and behaving as if they have a single-digit IQ (yes, I'm talking to you, op-ed contributors for the National Post), and care about someone other than themselves - even if their salary and CEO tell them not to.

And now, "The last ten posts in 10 sentences"
1: American capitalism is overly greedy, and socialist Norway makes more than the average American.
2: Whoever first thought up the phrase "Traditional Family Values" was a moron, and now, not all leftists come from broken homes
3: Christianity and Socialism get along remarkably well, despite what the prosperity gospel may tell you.
4: The right's lies tend to be very destructive, to the point where entire countries (Iraq) descend into anarchy and chaos as a result
5: The left wants people to care about other people.
6: Socialim and Communism are not the same, and the right is really scared of that, because Socialism is coming back.
7: Similar to the self-devouring snake, the poor and outcast are only the first on capitalism's hit list; help them, or you're next.
8: Education is fundamental, and ignorance is a much deadlier sin than lust, idolatry and envy put together.
9: Everyone is equal; thinking to the contrary has led us to bad places.
10: People should be able to control their government.

Thank you

Disinformation and Idiocy: Part 9 of 10

Accusation 9. The left want everybody to be equal.
People are NOT equal. There are always those on top and those below. The trick is to GET to the top and STAY THERE. But leftists just want to make everybody equal (ie. on the bottom) so the entire purpose of life is destroyed.

Yes. People are equal. That is an incredibly old concept, first finding its roots as far back as Ancient Greece. Though Athenian democracy was seriously flawed, the idea that people eligible to vote should all have an equal voice did not die with the Athenian Principality.

Indeed, I am often reminded of a bit of text from the United States Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

A truth held to be self-evident, that all are created equal, regardless of social stature, religious beliefs, economic status, or the amount of money they have. This is the very concept of democracy. Our system does not work on a basis of "one dollar, one vote", and thank God for that! Our system works on the basis that we are all equal. We all have an equal weight in decision making, at least that's the theory.

Where has the idea of "we are not equal" got us? Well, a lot of bad places. Slavery is the one that immediately springs to mind. The Confederacy separated from the Union based solely on the fact that they believed Negroes to be inherently lesser beings than whites. The idea of some being superior to others also started The Holocaust, the most horrific act of genocide in world history. It drove imperialism, which led to the deaths of millions of Africans, Asians, South Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Every modern genocide - from Rwanda to Bosnia to East Timor to Darfur - has been governed by the prevailing idea that some are better than others, that some deserve more and are more than others.

Now, onto the the old lie about leftists being poor atheist scumbags. The writer of these accusations must have had some bad experience with a satanist communist in Vietnam or something, because this is borderlining on pathological. To anyone who says that socialism makes everyone poor, I simply reiterate: Norway and Denmark both have higher GDP Per Capitas than the United States (as well as higher HDI ratings), and both are very socialist (yes, I know some like to say 'it's because norway has resources!', but that makes precious little difference. So does America, and they're capitalist). I've dealt with this in multiple previous blog posts, and I don't need to again.

Disinformation and Idiocy: Part 8 of 10

My apologies for not having this prepared sooner, but Calculus work has become more intense, leaving me with less writing time. Anyways, here we go.

Accusation 8. The left are snobs.
They think having fifty letters after your name and having written a book with lots of long words makes you a better person. Some of them actually swallow the "climate change" crap because the scammers trot out these 'intellectuals" who bombard them with figures, and it must be true because this guy's a professor! And the ridiculous notion that "education is the key" is just another example.

News flash: When you have a doctorate in something, you are likely to have researched it a lot more and have some incredibly specialized knowledge about it. Would anyone say "Albert Einstein wrote a book. Therefore, he doesn't know a thing about physics"? Not unless you were completely insane (which is possible).

Secondly, the writer of these accusations seems to somehow think that books are bad, and that "intellectuals" are evil evil commies. Now, it is true that most profs are more left-leaning than your average Texan. Let's think about that for a second. Profs and intellectuals are well-educated, and have seen a lot more of history and the world. Remarkably, they are much more liberal. What must we therefore conclude? Those who are educated will usually lean to the left, because they have seen more of the world and of history.

For the record, education is the key, unless you want a lazy, complacent, ignorant society...which explains the United States as a whole. An educated society is of benefit to everyone. When I go to my doctor, I benefit from his education. If I was to have laser eye surgery, would I want to know that the people performing the surgery were well educated and knew exactly what they were doing? Hell yes. Do I benefit if my doctor or surgeon isn't educated? No. In that case, the laser eye surgery tends to end very badly.

My point is that education is a fundamental component of any great society. That means reading books. That means questioning what you're told. That means occasionally defying authority and figuring things out for yourself, and not accepting something "because I was told so". To do otherwise is foolish. If someone told you that the world was made in 6 24-hour days as little as 6,000 years ago, and that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs....the bullshit scanner had better be going off...and if it isn't...I recommend some therapy. If you refuse to question...I recommend lots of therapy.

Disinformation and Idiocy: Part 7 of 10

Accusation 7. The left are hypocrites.
Especially those like Michael Moore, who professes to be on the side of "the poor" but has a huge mansion! News flash: the rich are BETTER than the poor because they are successful! If you're one of the rich, you CAN'T be on the side of the poor! Duh!

Now first off, does this nut not remember the phrase "all are equal under God"? Apparently not, but I'll delve into more detail on that in Part 9.

That said, the idea that you cannot help those below you contradicts not only every religious teaching of the past 3,000 years, but also every teaching of ethics in the past 5,000 years. Is that not the whole basis of the idea of charity? To give to those who are less fortunate than you? Is that not the whole idea of progressive taxation, that those with more, if unwilling to contribute to those beneath them voluntarily, must do so anyways? Is that not the entire idea of compassionate government, that those with power must help those without?

According to the US Constitution, the Christian Gospels, The earlier books of the Q'ran, and the majority of the non caste-oriented religious teachings preach that teveryone is equal. That is the fundamental idea of democracy. Every person has the same power with regards to the building and destroying of a government, and no one has less or more than anyone else (in practice, this does not work, as an address is required to vote - which eliminates close to 5,000 of Calgary's population alone).

The whole idea of supporting those of whom you are not a part revolves around the idea of a voice. In a capitalist society, the poor have no voice. In a capitalist society, those without money are those without significance or worth. In a capitalist system, the poor are incapable of representing themselves, where a system of one dollar, one vote renders them powerless. In that system, a voice needs to speak up for the voiceless. Does it not make ethical and moral sense for someone who has a voice to represent those who do not? For if the voiceless cannot speak, then who will do so for them? It is only a matter of time before capitalism turns on those who do have a voice, at which point theirs is useless.

"First they came for the communists; and I did not speak up, because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Jews; and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists; and I did not speak up, because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics; and I did not speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me; and by that time, no one was left to speak up for me.-Pastor Martin Niemöller, of the German Confession Anti-Nazi Church

Disinformation and Idiocy: Part 6 of 10

Accusation 6. The left don't know when to give up.
They LOST. The Berlin Wall fell twenty years ago! The USSR no longer exists! Communism has failed (except in China, where they all want to live). But they keep insisting it could come back. Guess what? It ain't gonna! WE WON! Accept that and join the rest of us!

We first need to make the distinction that communism and left-wing politics are two entirely different things. The three most prominent leftists in politics and journalism - Chomsky (in Thoughts on Power, published in 1995), Benn (in the British House of Commons) and Frisk (continually) - all viciously denounced communism in its days of glory. When the USSR collapsed in 1991 - mostly because of Boris Yeltsin - it simply heralded the collapse of that regime - not of the idea.

Indeed, I'm reminded of one of the final scenes in V for Vendetta, where V has been mortally wounded by a government executive. His last words before killing the exec are "Behind this mask is more than a man. Behind this mask is an idea; and ideas are bulletproof!" This quote applies very much to the political left after the dissolution of the USSR.

Ideas, of course, never remain the same from one incident to another. Regarding Fascism, Lewis Sinclair once said "When fascism comes to America, it will not wear a Swastika. It will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." The theories of fascism evolved past nazism to be dominionism, ultranationalism, organized hysteria (similar to the type often witnessed at Focus on the Family events - if we are to take the word of the ever-trustworthy Christopher Hedges) In the same way, the theories of the political left have evolved. Very similar to the contrast between America and Canada, communism is a comparitively immature form of left-wing politics - put your trust in the government and let it do what it wants, simply to hope that it will act in your best interests. It takes a mature, well-educated, politically active and thoughtful society to progress beyond that to the methods of modern left-wing politics: Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Socialism (to which I subscribe), Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism etc.

The distinction between communism and socialism has been attempted to be made clear to us since before 1917. Indeed, in the preface to Animal Farm, George Orwell writes "nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country....I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement." In the early days (and indeed even as late as Reagan), it was easy for those on the political and economic right to say of anyone who disagreed with them "he's a filthy commie. He's a soviet lover", and that was the end of the debate - show's over, socialism lost. Today, it is not that simple, and that scares the right.

Why does the right attempt to stuff down our throats that left wing politics is dead? It is because they are scared, terrified even, of the new left. Unlike in the Rage song, the new sound is not like the old sound, and that terrifies the right. They cannot resort to the ancient anti-communist rhetoric of yesterday, for today's left-wing politics do not look anything like yesterdays. today's left-wing is illustrated by the anarchist ELZN, the Democratic Socialist states of Scandinavia and South America, the union movements of central America, the "Stop the War! Coalition" and European Social Democracy. It is shaped by a belief that, if a government is to control the economy, then the people must control the government. The rhetoric of yesterday is wasted. The right cannot adapt, for it is an ideology that has truly stagnated.

The political right does not know their enemy. Every author of tactical codes and creeds - from Sun Tzu to Belisarius to Alexios I to Ferdinand Foch to Zhukov and Guderian to Mao - has stressed the need to know your enemy. The right has not done this, and it will be the death of them.

The cries of "the commies lost" do not illustrate the power of the political right. Rather, they clearly illustrate its desperation and weakness. A tyrant in danger of losing power will grip it tighter than ever - and thus hasten his demise. The political right is the same way. They grasp ever more tightly at power, hoping to squeeze one more little bit of profit from a dying planet, from an oppressed people, even as power slips away from them. Because of the nature of the political right, they will grip ever tighter, not realizing until it is too late that it is their own throat they are clutching at. As Trotsky once said: "If we chose to hang capitalists, they would attempt to sell us the rope as they walk to the gallows"

Disinformation and Idiocy: Part 5 of 10

5. The left want everybody to be like them.
Which is the reason for all their little wars and petty hatreds. They hate successful, wealthy, Christian, happy people because they are all poor, miserable, athiest failures and they can't be bothered to fix their own lives, preferring instead to make the rest of us like them. Again, this ignores the basic truth - if THEY were all like US, the world would be a better place.

Is it just me, or does this moron sound like Ann Coulter? The assumption that wealthy Christians are happy is, first of all, a huge assumption to make. Second off, to assume that left-wingers are poor, miserable, atheist failures is another huge assumption to make.

This whole idea that the left wants everyone to be like them. Not at all true. The left - in a perfect world - would have everyone as a part of them - not similar to them. So to say that the left wants everyone to be an eventual leftist is somewhat true.

But the point remains that this does not mean "I want you to be an atheist miserable failure of a person". It means we want everyone to have compassion for their fellow man. It means we want people to preach a gospel of kindness rather than a gospel of wealth and power. It means that we want people to look out for someone else and not pursue their own interests over global interests and the interests of people as a whole. And in the end, is that so bad?

Disinformation and Idiocy: Part 4 of 10

Accusation 4. The left tell lies.
They make up huge whopper porkies to wage their petty wars and make them 'acceptable' to people. The Big Liberal Lie is, of course, "climate change", which someone thought up and must have got a medal because now they can wage their war on profit and success and claim it's for the good of the planet! Another big lie is the one told by Obama and Australia's own Kevin Rudd, which is that they want to "change" their country, which really means "turn it into a Socialist utopia"

This guy has balls, I'll give him that. To say that the political left tells lies, when he himself is a right-winger is VERY bold. True, some people on the political left are corrupt, but that is inherent within any governmental system, which is part of the reason that I am a libertarian-socialist - when there is no government, it can't be corrupt (seems like a no-brainer)

Now, let us analyze this fetid and pathetic excuse of an accusation. Let us first off accept that close to 80% of the scientific community accepts global warming as scientific fact (and most of the 20% is in the employ of Exxon-funded disinformation groups). Can you be successful and still possess a healthy planet? Scandinavia has shown us that the answer is "yes". Most of the EU has also shown that. Their economic growth currently outpaces that of the United States - and the EU is MUCH close to meeting their Kyoto Targets (hell, anyone whose started to is closer than the US) Let us also accept that continuous progression forward is extremely important within a society. If a society stagnates and does not move forward, it falters, collapses, and eventually dies out. Let us also accept that "utopia" is a flawed concept, incapable of being produced. Am I an idealist? Yes. Am I a realist? yes. How many times did Milton Friedman preach his false gospel of neoliberalism, arguing that capitalism could create a true utopia (and judging by the performance of his favorite buddy - Pinochet - it didn't work out so well). Can there be such thing as a perfect society? No. Can there be such thing as a better society? Yes. history has shown us that much.

Let us now examine the dungheap of lies coming from the right. Off the bat, anyone remember "Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons"? That was a doozie. In fact, it was such a doozie that 5,000 Americans and close to 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a result (including 8,000 in the first three weeks of "precision" bombing) Anyone remember "Iraq has ties to Al Quaeda"? That was another good one, which turned out to be fuller of BS than a manure processing plant.
Did anyone else bother to watch "the Great Global Warming Swindle"? As it turns out, the science that was quoted as close to a decade out of date (when informed of this, the producer responded to the whistleblower by saying something to the effect of "you're a big daft cock"), and the scientists interviewed often had their views "distorted" (per an independent review and investigation into the program).
Or howsabout that one about "by far the majority of the tax cuts go to those on the bottom" - total bullshit.

What I'm trying to say is that the political spectrum right of me (the vast majority of it) is far more guilty of lying and falsifying than the political spectrum left of me (not much of it, because I'm pretty damn left).

Parts 5-10 to follow.