RINF Alternative News
There is in many people a natural tendency to serfdom.To bow and curtsy to royalty, to fawn over celebrities, indeed, to take their every lead from that band of ‘superiors’ which can be called ‘they’ – they who ‘know best’, they who are ‘natural born leaders’, etc.
Most British settlers of America in 1775 wanted to remain loyal to the British elite, and it was this class of serf-in-the-mind that Thomas Paine castigated for their continuing support of a regime that had ‘lost sight of the limits of humanity’. In his essay,’A Serious Thought’, he stated: ‘When I reflect on the horrid cruelties exercised by the British in the East-Indies … (and how they) ravaged the hapless shores of Africa, robbing it of its unoffending inhabitants to cultivate her stolen dominions in the West … and a thousand instances of similar barbarity, I firmly believe that the Almighty,in compassion to mankind, will curtail the power of Britain’. He wrote (1777) that other nations would suffer the barbarities of an empire that sought to to ‘lay waste the world in blood and famine … to kill, conquer, plunder, pardon and enslave’ … to brutalize mankind’.
Monaem Sarker (2008) wrote of those ‘other nations’, and that the East india Company (the corporation by which Britain subjugated India) was an early exponent of regime change, and developed the ‘divide and rule’ model which was to be adopted by American colonialism: ‘As a policy, the Company had long since decided that regime change would be conducive to their interests in Bengal … (they had a) cunning strategy to use the feuds among local rulers to pit one of them against the other by taking side with those inclined to them. … Later on conflicts between various Indian rulers was also successfully utilized by the British in spreading their domination all over India’. Sarker wrote that 32 million Indians died as a result of British ‘plundering of resources … Indian people started suffering from full scale famines. The Great Bengal Famine of 1769-70 caused deaths to 10 million Indians in Bihar and Bengal. During 1782-84, 11 million died from famine in Madras, Mysore, Delhi and Punjub. During 1791-92, another 11 million died in Hyderabad, Southern Maratha country, Deccan, Gujarat, and Marwar.’
‘It was the forced pauperization of vast Indian population that allowed nations like Britain and America to industrialize and ‘modernize’. This capital was collected through various means, including uneven trades, forced use of land and labor, great remittance of Indian income and excessive extraction from the common Indians’. That commercial interests hidiously took precedent over any semblance of humanity is given in an example from the early 19th century – the East India Company, in order to promote British textiles, cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal.
The British committed atrocities in India that rivalled those of the Nazis in Europe, yet British children are taught nothing of this. The truth is too painful. British and American industrialisation in the Nineteenth century was funded by exploitation backed by mass murder. Instead of this fact, the achievements of individual industrialists are praised in textbooks, giving the impression that they were the products of ‘superior’stock, who conquered the world of ‘inferior races’, through ‘superior intelligence’ and ‘energy’. This is the impression given by British and American propaganda disguised as curriculum. It is the root of racism. The British government promotes a perversion of British history – at the same time as denouncing Nazi atrocities in Europe, it is silent about the Nazi-like atrocities the British committed in India. What impression does this leave on modern day Indians? That Indian victims of atrocities are less important than Jewish ones? That Indians are of an inferior race? Similarly, atrocities committed by American-backed regimes in South America and Africa are absent in American school histories. Not all victims of atrocities are equal.
Americans are taught that it was British taxes and control that spurred the desire for independence. Airbrushed from history are Thomas Paine’s descriptons of British atrocities, which he believed were the main (and moral) reason for wanting rid of British rule. In a psychological sense, America did not cede from Britain – it merely replaced one set of tyrants with another of the same mindset – for the Constitution did nothing to protect the rights of other country’s citizens from exploitation by American colonialism, with the inevitable consequence that the brutalities meted out to foreigners would eventually come home to roost in America.
“Well, he got what was coming to him”, was the only thing that Robert Kennedy said of the CIA-backed assassination of the President of Brazil, Joao Goulart, whose country was deemed unsupportive of American business interests. The CIA trained Brazilian security forces, which opened a ‘torture school’ on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro to teach police state-of-the-art torture techniques.
In 1982, Guatamalan army commandos attacked the village of Dos Erres, slaughtering more than 250 men, women and children. Soldiers raped girls in front of their families, then led their victims to a dry well. A commando threw a baby down the well, other children followed; those interrogated had their heads smashed by sledgehammers, before being thrown on top of their children. The American government knew what had happened, but kept it secret until 1998. Four soldiers were convicted in 2011 for their part in these atrocities.
In 1945, the State Department opined that Latin Americans might prefer ‘policies designed to bring about the broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses’. This judgement was the death sentence of many hundreds of thousands, as their aspirations ran counter to American business interests, owned by the New American Elite. More torture equates to more business. Agricultural exports increase as colonial populations starve, echoing the ‘Irish Potato Famine’, which was not a famine at all, but a food shortage resulting from British colonialists exporting Irish foodstuffs.
In “What Uncle Sam Really Wants”, Noam Chomsky wrote: ‘In one high-level document after another, US planners stated their view that the primary threat to the new US-led world order was Third World nationalism – “nationalistic regimes” that are responsive to “popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses” and production for domestic needs. … The planners’ basic goals, repeated over and over again, were to prevent such “ultranationalist” regimes from ever taking power – or if, by some fluke, they did take power, to remove them and to install governments that favor private investment of domestic and foreign capital, production for export and the right to bring profits out of the country … The US has very little popular support for its goals in the Third World. This isn’t surprising, since it’s trying to impose structures of domination and exploitation’.
Chomsky and Andre Vltchek (On Western Terrorism) observe: ‘Western misinformation has been clearly targeting countries that have been refusing to succumb to Western dictate … while glorifying those nations that were either ravishing its neighbors on behalf of Western interests, or plundering their own impoverished people’. The first category includes Russia, the second category will inevitably include Ukraine, as a part of a new Eastern Europian version of india under British rule. Its puppet government will not be allowed to negotiate with Russia, as this may mean concessions at the expense of American exploitation of natural resources.
How can Americans expect to be treated any better than their government treat others? Those ‘serfs’ who support the American government, as much as many colonials supported King George, do not believe in freedom as a universal right – it is a right only to be enjoyed by Americans. If American-backed dictatorships murder those opposed to them, well, that’s OK, this opposition must be ‘communists’, ‘extremists’, ‘Islamists’, etc. (they can never simply be people with aspirations for their children), and deserve what they get, for they pose a threat to America: They will soon be on our doorstep if not checked, like aliens from a 1950’s ‘B’ movie – THEY CAME FROM OUTER IRAQ! The thousand American military bases that span the world, rivalling in number that of the Roman Empire, are only there to protect ‘our way of life’. This myopia is spread like a virus between generations of intellectual serfs.
American Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, declares that ISIL pose a “clear and imminent threat” to America. In more perfect harmony than a barber shop choir, David Cameron and his European counterparts croon from the same hymn sheet: ‘Islamic State militants could grow strong enough to target people on the streets of Britain unless action is taken’, they harmonize, as did Tony Blair when warning of Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities.
ISIL do not have the military capacity to overcome the potential forces facing them: the Western-backed Kurdish Peshmerga, the Iran-backed Shi’ite militias which will defend Bagdhad; Sunni Ba’athist forces that use ISIL to promote their anti-Sh’ite agenda. The Iranian Defense Minister, Hossein Dehqan, has claimed that ISIL are not considered a threat to Iran: “ISIL is not considered a threat to our country, and the Iraqi people will eliminate the cell by themselves”, he told the ISNA news agency. Yet, we are asked to believe that ISIL pose a threat to distant American and European streets. The magnify the threat of external enemies to justify an increase in internal security measures, which are then extended to anyone who opposes their power.
Also, if ISIL’s few thousand combatants are such a threat to the Western world, why is the oil from wells they have captured sold by Aramco, the American oil company that controls Saudi Arabia? Why do the Kurds, who are supposedly fighting ISIL, export cut-price oil from Kirkuk through an ISIL-controlled pipeline, with Saudi Arabia putting its stamp on the barrels. This is a story of the ‘half-enemy’, helped in one place (Syria), opposed in another (Iraq), whatever it takes to get hands-on-oil, the reason why Iraq is being divided into three parts, with the winners being American oil companies, and the losers being the Chinese, who import Iraqui oil. It is about oil, not Islam. ISIL is nothing but a CIA-funded band of mercenaries. Refugees on a mountain serve as an excuse for intervention, just as Benghazi civilians did in the Libyan oil campaign. America is really bombing the Ba’ath Party again.
Roi Tov, author of The Cross of Bethlehem, writes: ‘In 2013, the Kurdistan Regional Government completed a pipeline from the Taq Taq field through Khurmala and Dahuk to Faysh Khabur on the Turkey-Iraq border, where it was connected to the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline. … On May 23, 2014, the Kurdistan Regional Government announced that the first oil transported through the new pipeline was loaded into tanker at Ceyhan, but it did not disclose the final destination of the cargo. … In Friday, the SCF Altai tanker approached the Ashkelon Port. This is very unusual, since the port is a secondary one serving almost exclusively tankers using the Trans-Israel Pipeline. … On May 23, 2014, the Kurdistan Regional Government announced that the first oil transported through the new pipeline was loaded into tanker at Ceyhan, but it did not disclose the final destination of the cargo. In Friday, the SCF Altai tanker approached the Ashkelon Port. This is very unusual, since the port is a secondary one serving almost exclusively tankers using the Trans-Israel Pipeline. “We do not comment on the origin of crude oil being imported by the private refineries in Israel,” the Israeli Ministry of Energy reacted. … The only reason for a tanker to download oil in Ashkelon is to transfer it to Eilat The Kurdish oil will not be refined in Israel. If that were the case, it would have reached the ports of Ashdod or Haifa. Israel wants to please both its new ally and the USA. It cannot refine Kurdish oil in open defiance of Uncle Obama. Instead, it adopted a tactic used in its diamonds industry. Israel is laundering Kurdish oil. After the oil is transferred to Eilat and stored for a while, it will probably be sold in several unmarked batches. By then, international attention would be focused elsewhere’.
This is the world of 1984 come real. Britain, a province of the superstate Oceania (America) is in a state of perpetual war against ‘external enemies’. Propaganda ensures citizens believe in ‘the war’. Surveillance is pervasive. Real and imagined dissidents are accused of ‘thought crimes’, and are beaten and tortured, then, when nearly broken are sent to Room 101, to face ‘the worst thing in the world’. Government departments running this system are housed in pyramids. American presidents are modern day pharoes, their acolytes are such as British Prime Ministers.
The admonitions of Thomas Paine were ignored because the American colonial elite became the new princes and lords of America by other names – presidents, congressmen, senators, and governors. Americans, yes, but ones that view the ‘lower orders’ with as much contempt as any British lord, and with as much contempt as the present British elite view their ‘lower class’. In America, it was just a change of title – the American pharoes continued to loathe and fear ‘ordinary’ people in equal measure.
The more that people disbelieve the supposed threat, the more hyped it becomes. A recent Public Policy Polling survey showed 74% of Americans oppose sending US ground forces to Iraq to fight ISIL, however, the same pole showed 52% wanting America to lead a coalition of allies to ‘stabilize’ Iraq. That is, they want the sheriff of ‘High Noon’ to be backed up by a possee of American stooge governments – it is not neo-colonialism that is wrong, it is not wrong to protect American oil interests in Irbil, it is only wrong to stand alone against the ‘baddies’, as if in numbers there is morality.
The New American elite has utter contempt for international law. Chomsky, in ‘Rogue States, 1998’, wrote: ‘The judgment of the World Court in 1986 condemning America for “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua were ignored … The Democrat-controlled Congress authorized new funds to increase this unlawful use of force … America vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to respect international law’. Hypocritically, a collective mouthpiece of American neo-colonialism, EU foreign ministers, bleated (August 14, 2014),’Any unilateral military actions on the part of the Russian Federation in Ukraine under any pretext, including humanitarian, will be considered by the European Union as a blatant violation of international law.’ Such law is only quoted when it serves American interests.
The New American Elite outwardly pledge to uphold ‘freedom’, ‘tolerance’, ‘prosperity’, ‘religious pluralism’, and ‘universal suffrage’, whilst enacting measures to lessen these ‘values’ within America, where the pharoah-class become ever richer, and do not tolerate freedom of expression that opposes their dynastic rule.
The warnings of Thomas Paine were ignored. You are heading for Room 101, some are already in it.