Yesterday someone tried to tell me that Cromwell was the birth of democracy. Aaaggh, so frustrating. It was a beach conversation and the guy was drunk so it was pointless – no learning, but at least it sparked this blog.
England was a feudal country run by royal landowners, their land gained by inheritance. When you consider the statement that Cromwell was the birth of English democracy there is an implication that Cromwell created parliament. This is far from true as Cromwell himself was an MP, in fact the war was between parliamentarians and royalists.
It is worth examining the history of parliament to understand whether Cromwell was in fact fighting for democracy. Search wiki for parliament, and you will see that parliament was an advisory body set up by William the Conqueror, vestiges of that origin still exist in current formal practices such as Royal Assent and the Queen’s speech – details here.
So how genuine was the democracy that voted for Cromwell?
Here is a description of the history of UK suffrage – wiki search suffrage click United Kingdom so that you can follow the links:-
King Henry VI of England established in 1432 that only male owners of property worth at least forty shillings, a significant sum, were entitled to vote in a county. Changes were made to the details of the system, but there was no major reform until the Reform Act 1832. It was not until 1918 that all men over 21, and wealthy women won the right to vote, and it was not until 1928 that all women over 21 won the right to vote. Suffrage in the United Kingdom was slowly changed over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries through the use of the Reform Acts and the Representation of the People Acts, culminating in universal suffrage, excluding children and convicted prisoners.
Reform Act 1832 – extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights
Representation of the People Act 1928 – this made women’s voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions
In other words Cromwell was voted in by rich landowners, and the civil war was effectively between rich landowners and royal landowners. One could squarely argue that Cromwell was a parliamentarian but to argue anything concerned with democracy is quite clearly out-of-line. When I was just starting out I remember a Ugandan activist telling me that people only got the vote when the powers-that-be had control of who you were voting for, this is the Veil – see the movie “Lifting the Veil”. Universal suffrage only occurred in 1928 or 1969 depending on how important age (21 or 18) is for you, but there were property requirements until the end of the First World War. By the end of the First World War the bipartisan model of politics was well established (“Veil”), and whilst the Labour party at that time had some vestiges of being a working-class movement it was still a party of opportunists with mass movement rhetoric. With Blair the Veil was complete, maybe Milliband is a reaction to him? Back to the blog theme, for me the above clearly indicates that Cromwell fought for moneyed interests against royal interests, democracy nowhere near a consideration. For further indications as to how self-serving parliament was at that time briefly read wiki on long parliament, rump parliament etc.
I will be perfectly honest, the drunk at the beach has helped me. If his boorish behaviour had allowed I would not have argued from fact even though the sense of what I would have said would still have been true – I had it in the back of my mind that Cromwell used the people with a mock democracy to establish parliament, far from the truth he was just a round peg that fitted the hole that business parliament wanted him to fill. Whether some people fought for democracy I don’t know, whether Cromwell’s war rhetoric was about peoples’ rights I don’t know, but what is certain his actions were based on the profits of the business class in parliament. This also fits his later exploitative role – the first colonialist in Ireland, colonialism being concerned with the expansion of land procurement with a view to profit – a business venture.
Posts Tagged ‘history’
Tags: Corporatocracy, division, history, intellect
This analysis is based on an understanding of Howard Zinn’s book – as well as my own understanding of the mass movement and socialism. I am stuck in an awful storm. I was on my way to Chan for my latest Fang Kem when the rain came. Despite my recent immune system weakness based on hormonal balance I refuse to accept limitations of my freedom based on health. It is my view that healing will occur through acupuncture, and developing the required balance through personal healing and recognising what is contributing to the hormonal balance – not just sex hormones!! The last few days the weather has been nice – good times especially at the beach, but today was a reminder that the rainy season is not over. Normally I would just ride in the rain but I was forced to stop – I couldn’t see and there was a wind. I stopped in a Khlung coffee shop, phoned the doctor, and ended up reading Howard Zinn.
There are strong indications that the Libertarians are based in the movement of US leaders against the British. But to be clear these early Libertarians were not fighting for freedom for the American people, they were fighting for freedom from the British. It is important to recognise the colonial structure prior to 1776 – Declaration of Independence. Despite the portrayed religious image, the British people who went to America were funded to go there for profiteering. The Conquistadores went for gold, but the later whites went for the profits to be gained from the land. Over time there developed a typical colonial structure in which some whites profited from the relationship with their colonial masters, but other educated people (middle-classes) saw the injustices for themselves and wanted their bit of the cake. The struggle for independence was not a class struggle in which the American people were founding a government for themselves, but a struggle in which one group of usurpers were replacing another, the US middle-classes who were less favoured than the British puppets.
When you have such a conflict – between 2 ruling classes, rhetoric is needed because each class needs ordinary people to fight their battles. Who was to fight the British soldiers? But the American people, who bought into the Declaration of Independence, were no less duped than the same British soldiers they were fighting; no less duped than the soldiers who fight today in the wars for profits that benefit the corporatocray.
When you listen to Libertarians today, what are you listening to? The same liberal middle classes who were trying to overthrow the British and their puppets. These are people who do not want a change of class in which government is by the people, they want a free-for-all in which the regulations of government that maintain the corporatocracy are withdrawn enabling a new ruling-class to gain control. But what is the nature of this new libertarian ruling-class? No change. This is not a power structure in which the people come first, it is a power structure in which different rulers can old power. They don’t want regulation because they don’t want restrictions. Freedom as a principle sounds wonderful but if there are no checks and balances for those less fortunate then there is no freedom. And by fortunate I am not simply talking about money. At present the Libertarians complain about the corporatocracy – understandable that is the ruling class. How does the corporatocracy rule? Bullying by the richest – typical being the way contributions dominate elections in so-called western democracies. So less fortunate means less money. But if Libertarians are genuinely concerned about the people, they would also be interested in those less fortunate because of race, creed and colour, they would be interested in providing a society in which those with disabilities of whatever form can still function in their society, in a society that is caring. This is genuine freedom for all.
What is useful about seeing the roots of libertarianism is to see that there is no change now. When libertarian approaches were first introduced – Declaration of Independence, these approaches were designed to replace the existing ruling-class with another. Howard Zinn points out that this same Libertarian class were running a tightrope in which they were trying to fuel the independence zeal of the poor but without actually giving the poor power. This is an equally valid description of libertarianism today, they have policies which entice the poor but which will never actually empower them.
And this is also a strong pointer as to why libertarians are so vehement in their attacks on socialism. Socialism has one proviso that does not work for those who wish to change the ruling-class – from corporatocrats to libertarians, socialism requires that the mass movement comes first. Ultimately that means all people need to be free but it requires the people come first and not an abstract principle of freedom where deregulation allows for repossessions etc. as collateral damage to a principle.
Once you see that socialism and libertarianism conflict, you can begin to see why there is so much funding for libertarians. At the same time if you examine historically the class of libertarians you can see that funding for them is just the ruling class funding itself. Whilst libertarians might see the corporatocracy as their enemy, the corporatocracy see libertarians as allies. Quite simply the corporatocracy knows there is only one way they can lose control. They need compliant people to make their profits, without a workforce and without consumers there is no corporatocracy. That is the fear of the 1%. That is why Occupy is fought with brutal police tactics, because Occupy is mass movement.
And that is why they will continue to fund the Sons of Liberty to write that socialism is dead. It is why they will continue to fund libertarian scholars such as von Mises to rewrite what is socialism. Why do so many scholars fail to see the distinction between socialism and communism? Why do so many scholars fail to analyse why the Soviet Union failed? Why China failed? And then equate that failure with the death of socialism? Why do scholars fail to draw a distinction between socialism and state socialism? Why is there so much confusion about a word that is so clear – an approach that benefits the mass movement. All the theories that the academics and idealists put in the way of the mass movement are funded. It is the intention that these words be confused, that the ideas confuse.
Through the 70s and 80s the British Labour party were famous for shooting themelves in the foot. Once the Bilderberg Veil, movie – Lifting the Veil, were aware that their puppets such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were going to support their interest rather than the interests of the mass movement, they allowed the Conservative party to be divided over Europe. Primarily Blair then went ahead fighting their wars for profit under a supposed socialist banner of the Labour party. Sponsored academy then began to confuse Blair’s corporatocratic policies with socialism increasing speculation that socialism is dead. What is important for these Bilderbergers is the need to ensure that there is no mass movement organisation that will unite their workforce and their consumers – no organisation will remove the control by the corporatocracy. When there is no flagship of socialism for organised labour to unite behind their work is done. No matter how many intellectuals write that there is Bilderberg and conspiracies the Veil does not care, because there is NO organisation. The working-class movement needs leaders not intellectualism. These leaders need to be accountable within an appropriate genuine democratic structure, and not tokens ready to be bought off – Blair in the Quartet, Brown in Education(?).
And we have other stooges who muddy the pool of understanding. What about Alec Jones? Tons of money, and plenty of sound criticism of the corporatocracy and Bilderberg. But equally critical of socialism and mass movement organisations. People of this ilk – funded system critics alternative intellectuals – are significant because they are so divisive. There are not large numbers of these people, but their work populates the internet, and intellectuals succumb to the view that these people are both knowledgeable and a powerbase because of their funded presence. But integral to their whole approach is a criticism of socialism, the reason they are being funded.
And what do these funded idealists give reverence to – the Founding Fathers, the intellectuals who developed the constitution, the intellectuals who provided the rhetoric that duped the poor into fighting for these alternative rulers. The people rallied behind the Declaration of Independence, fought the wars of independence, and accepted the chattels of the new American ruling class. And as this American ruling class has gained power, money and become the corporatocracy, the Libertarians turn again to the same rhetoric to get the people to rally behind them. Do they want them as an army to fight the corporatocracy? Maybe not, but they do want the corporatocracy undermined so the Libertarians can take over. Not the people, the mass movement, the socialists BUT the Libertarians. Make no mistake, these Sons of Liberty are true to their historical roots – a different shade of ruling class.
Today is grey and dismal at the beach.With the wind there is a slanting drizzle that is continually giving the occasional spatter on my face. Kleun yaai – the waves are a bit high, unless there is a change I suspect there will be no exercise. But things can quickly change for the better – or worse. Should I pay attention to this? Of course not, it is still good to be here, but the realisation of the mindful ignorance is quite disturbing. But then with the dog problem and health issues my meditation has not been good, and I am letting this get to me. How weak!!
I am not therefore feeling particularly spiritual so I looked at a book which I have referred to Howard Zinn’s A Peoples’ History of the United States. It is a significant book in the jigsaw of history, I suspect I will be too ill-disciplined to finish it. The first book I read which taught me to understand history is Walter Rodney’s “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”. This might well best be understood if read in conjunction with Basil Davidson’s Africa (Basil’s Guardian Obituary). “Africa” is a wonderful series talking about the history of Africa, an Africa which contemporaneously compared with Europe was civilised. Here is the series:-
Walter Rodney gave a much more economic analysis of the process including bringing it up-to-date (Second World War) with the exploitations of the then multinationals of the corporatocracy explaining the division of the cake that was the first world war. Now this book describes Africa and its development as a European colony (derivation of colony is farm). At the time I studied this book and the series Africa, I wanted to understand UK race relations. Primarily the race issues in the UK in the 70s revolved around British racism and the Afro-Caribbean communities who were encouraged to migrate to the UK post-second world war to do the lesser paid jobs that could not be filled because of the decimation of the white population in the second world war.
The First World War was primarily fought between Britain and France and Germany. France had its colonies known as Francophone Africa – basically West Africa except for Ghana and Nigeria. Britain fundamentally colonised the rest of black Africa (Bantu) except for the Arab colonies of North Africa, excluding the German and Belgian colonies. This is an over-simplistic analysis.
The weather is miserable, the heavens have opened, the horizon is grey; if I were to go home now I would be soaked – I will probably be soaked anyway.
But this British history is effectively the second colonial stage because it misses out an important historical process – finance. The book that brings finance into the picture before British colonial history is Eduardo Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America”. He introduces key figures of colonial history – the conquistadores. These often-lauded figures of history, Cortes, Pizarro, Columbus and others were sponsored to go “East” to find gold. After the decimation of Latin American civilisations of the Incas and Aztecs who contemporaneously had historically been far in advance of their European counterparts, this gold was brought back to Spain. From my school history along comes the hero Francis Drake to fight the nasty Spanish who had nasty people like the Spanish Inquisition. This belies the real history where the English wanted Spanish gold. Then there were the heroes and legends that were pirates in the Caribbean. Basically the Spanish were killing the indigenous people for their gold and the British were stealing that gold from the Spanish. It was this gold that sponsored the underdevelopment of Africa, once Spain had been overthrown.
Once the finance had been sourced the historical picture fits together more clearly, but no history can leave out the current hegemony – the US, and this is where Howard Zinn’s book comes in. Columbus so-called discovery of America was the murder of Arawak Indians to loot the gold his sponsors had desired. Columbus began the stream of exploiters who were US heritage. A leopard cannot change its spots – the US started as and continues to be the harbinger of exploitation that became the global hegemony towards the end of the Second World War (as described at Bretton Woods and in the Marshall plan). Some of this US history is discussed here. For a more detailed understanding of the rise of the US read Howard Zinn’s book.
The accumulation of the gold in Europe primarily Britain gave rise to the banking dynasties, for a description of their place in history check the Money Masters.
Between the banking institutions, the Military Industrial Complex and the owners of the Transnationals we have the basis of the corporatocracy. These people maintain political control through their satrapies. These satrapies are sham democracies manipulated as a dual choice between democrat and republican, labour and conservative etc as clearly explained in the movie, Lifting the Veil. There is no choice for the people only the better shade of puppetry.
Placing The Orient in the context of this history is difficult for me – I am not knowledgeable enough. Chinese history is long. Perhaps China’s civilisations predated those of Africa and Latin America. China is the key player in Oriental history but that is not to dismiss the developments in other countries. China was significant in European history as it was from China the Europeans got the gun. The Orient was primarily a trading partner rather than colonially exploited. This could be understood through the Silk Route and others. There were various European colonies such as Indonesia and Malaysia, there was an attempt to colonise China – that failed in the Boxer revolution. I have no coherent picture of the East, and nowhere to point you – sorry.
This movie, Harvest of Empire brings up-to-date the effects of contemporary US foreign policy. Starting with the murder and enslavement of the Native Americans (Indians) as described by Howard Zinn’s “Peoples-history-of-the-united-states-1492-present”, the movie shows how dependent the US is on Latino workers to maintain their standard of living. I was amused when Juan Gonzalez (from Democracy Now said that by the end of this century more US citizens will have Latino origins than European. And yet now all the government does is maintain a legal regime that prevents citizenship, allowing legal exile and continued impoverishing wage-slavery.
I was rather disappointed with the position on Nicaragua. It was clearly stated that the Sandinista revolution was a Peoples’ revolution – people from diverse backgrounds, and it was equally clearly stated that Reagan, and not Carter, chose to finance the Contras. But then the movie focussed on Luis Enrique, a famous Nicaraguan singer – apparently, who fled to the US because his family could not choose sides. At that point it came across that at that stage of the Nicaraguan struggle both sides were equally to blame. Now the theme of the movie is to present the situation that the US economy depends on Latino labour, that that labour is in the US because of US foreign policy that had created and supported puppet dictators who murdered their own people, but to place the Sandinistas and Contras as equally at fault at the time of Luis Enrique is almost traitorous. The Sandinista revolution to me was the clearest example of a democratic overthrow of a dictatorship, on a par with the people supporting Castro; Juan, tell me what could the Sandinistas have done at the time of Luis Enrique? Didn’t the Sandinistas have a democratic mandate far higher than any ballot box, a mandate where the majority of Nicaraguan peoples of all classes supported the sandinistas led by Daniel Ortega?
The movie finished with the figures that there will be 130 million Latinos, 1/3 of the US population, by 2050. “Ït is an immigrant nation”. The movie does not discuss policy, a means for change. With the global inequality of wealth what is going to happen? Does this notion of immigrant nation mean that existing Americans, however that is defined nationality-wise, must accept that there is to be an ever-increasing influx of Latino peoples? Where is the practicality in such an approach? During the movie there were several quotes from bigots from all status in US society. If the choice is between bigotry and continuous influx, then more and more have to accept bigotry; the approach must be practical. US foreign policy that brought the immigrants, but this reality cannot give a “human right” for all of the world’s Latinos. The situation of illegality is inhuman, advantages only big business, and is no solution. But what is?
I saw signs for the Dream Act, what is it?
This is taken from wiki “Dream Act”, and here is the Dream Act portal. But this looks like a bog-standard buying off of the intellectuals who are the leaders of immigration rights, and does nothing for workers who are not educated.
The graphic in this link is all that needs saying about the increasing level of struggle globally:-
Tags: Corporatocracy, division, history, intellect, Occupy
Warning – Alex Jones is a problem.
I dont like promoting Alex Jones films because of the hidden messages they contain – discussed below. But I do think this movie is worth considering:-
I downloaded it from here.
When you watch this movie it is definitely worth considering the level of control being exerted by the “robber barons”. The advantage that Alex Jones has is that he is financially well hung – strong right-wing sponsorship. This enables a level of research people on the left cannot afford. That is the advantage of this movie he has the money to trace back and make the connections of the powers-that-be – I made some of the connections here.
But you do need to consider what is the purpose of this right-wing sponsorship. Alex Jones promotes individualism and this is a type of Republican message that is so dangerous. We do need individualism, we need the individualism that questions, that thinks for itself. Having worked on the left there is no doubt that these people (lefties) are individualists because you don’t join the Left unless you question the establishment. But what is the major problem on the left? Division. Individuals who do not accept collective discipline for the greater good – the collective. The Occupy movement recognised these problems and altered their democracy to reflect this – see my discussions on Occupy starting here, many blogentries. Throughout the Alex Jones movie there are derogatory references to the collective. Why? The collective is us, the people. There is a strong attack on collective as if joining together is not the correct way forward as if collectivism is a tool of the establishment. We are together already but the problem is that our power has been taken away from us by mind control and other misuses of power by the financial elite – robber barons. It is only when that natural collective functions in the interest of all the people that we have a solution to our problems.
Who are these robber barons? These are individuals who put their own interests first. This is the anomaly throughout the libertarian position. By promoting individuality first you promote the same interests that leads to the elite exploitation. They want freedom, these Right-Wing sponsors want to use that freedom to exploit the rest of humanity through mind control. That misuse of freedom has to be controlled whilst at the same time freedom for all needs to be promoted, this type of paradox is at the heart of democracy and is the fundamental flaw of these Republican libertarians.
The other fallacy that libertarians promote is the Founding Fathers. Throughout this movie there is the historical perspective that the root of all the financial exploitation lies in Europe, and of course it does. But then there is somehow an implication that this financial root has managed to somehow divert the wonderful American Founding Fathers. This is such a crock. Throughout history the exploiting class have developed constitutions, used academic literature, promoted ideals – basically appropriated any human virtue in order to exploit. The American constitution sounds great, but like everything else that is “virtuous” there was never any intention for that constitution to be put into practice. In the same way that Europe’s virtues were used to make wage-slaves of the European population, the constitution of these Founding Fathers was used to enslave the American peoples. There was never a wonderful society (cowboys?) in which American people helped each other, worked for each other, and showed compassion based on the virtues of the constitution. The constitution is simply the tool it was intended to be, the image of virtue that enslaved the American people. Alex Jones Republican masters misuse his own idealism for that constitution in a way that divides ordinary people fighting for their rights.
Libertarians demand freedom – whatever the consequences. Libertarians don’t provide protection for ordinary people, it is a bully’s charter – free to do what you want if you are powerful enough. So when you listen to Alex Jones, try to remember this. Whilst his analysis of what is wrong with society is sound – based on much financial support, his solution is just more of the same – a charter for individuals to exploit.
The foundation of any political action needs to be compassion.
After my millenial history it felt important to point out a number of cultural consequences. Whilst profit was the driving force changes in culture were the recognisable impositions on society. And none was more significant than white’s appropriation of culture from black people. I am not presenting this in any academic way, so exact dates are not clear. This would obviously be a get-out clause for academic sticklers and those who don’t wish to see the truth. But such people would not believe a hammer hit them on the head.
Early recorded civilisations were in that area of Africa around Egypt, Sudan etc., but earliest recognition of creativity were cave paintings. In the 80s Basil Davison presented an excellent series, Africa, and in this first episode he debunked many of the racist myths that have grown up since. Cave paintings of clear black African origin were found in Algeria – Arabic Africa now, and this showed a cultivated black African society in a green Sahara. Where were white people at that time? Egyptian civilisation was clearly rooted in black Africa with many leaders depicted in black stone. This has to be understood as a feat because black stone is not found in the regions of modern Egypt, and had to be transported from far away. At the time I became interested in this some 30 years ago, I read, probably in a book by Cheikh Ante Diop interviewed by Basil (17.58mins), as to how Arabs once they had invaded Egypt desecrated these statues by removing negroid features. I was in London at the time and a trip to the British Museum saw numerous statues with the negro lips and flat noses obviously damaged. Here is a page, black and proud, about the British Museum of which this image is just one:-
Without going into more detail (not the purpose here) African civilisation was flourishing long before white civilisation had got off the ground. (More on Africa by W E B Dubois). But then slowly but surely white (& Arab) people have destroyed these civilisations. It began with the Greeks but their involvement was not to appropriate. People like Herodotus and Hippocrates travelled in Africa to learn, a bit like young nowadays ought when travelling the world, respectfully bringing the knowledge back to Greece. Much of that knowledge is now attributed to the Greeks as part of contemporary appropriation, but the Greeks never proclaimed this. For the Greeks they provided a valuable historical service, at the library of Alexandria they wrote this knowledge down. Pythagoras was a philosopher more famed for his theorem, and this had African roots in agriculture. African farmers used a 12 metre piece of rope with knots each a meter apart and one at each end. To square off their fields they used this rope in the form of a 3,4,5 triangle. That aside the Greeks began the appropriation of African knowledge, but it is white history that ascribed this knowledge as Greek, not the Greeks themselves.
In the first millenium the Arabs expanded out of what is now known as the Middle East. Their expansionism took them into North Africa where they looted wealth and slaves. These slaves were assimilated into Arab society. Some of the rich Arabs in Oman I taught were of obvious black African origin – although more likely to be Tanzanian if in Oman; yet at the same time there was a significant Sudanese diaspora there. In the millenium history I spoke of the Crusades taking Arab wealth, I think you can now see that part of that wealth had to be considered African.
But whilst Arabs looted and enslaved they did not significantly destroy the cultures. It was up to the white man to do that. As European society developed so the merchants sought goods further and further afield, significant was trips to China where they appropriated gunpowder. It was this gunpowder which fuelled the muskets of the Spanish that decimated Mayan and Aztec culture in order to fill the coffers of the Queen of Spain. But once the British had gained this loot as the spoils of their war with Spain, that money was invested in sailing ships that set for the shores of Africa, but with one purpose – slavery. What is rarely described is that Africans were skilled farmers, and this knowledge was needed in the plantations that were being established in the Caribbean. Once established tobacco and other crops were returned to England where profits from their sales funded the next ships that went to Africa – the famed slave triangle. And why didn’t the Africans prevent this? Gunpowder. The British butchered the Africans in much the same way as the Spanish had butchered the Mayans and Aztecs. The process of destruction of Africa by the Europeans was described in Walter Rodney’s book “How Europe underdeveloped Africa”, and the Spanish connection is discussed in Eduardo Galeano’s book “Open Veins of Latin America”.
Whilst Walter Rodney attributes the death of African civilisation to the Europeans, I believe that is not the total truth. A British colony was also significant in the destruction. Once the US had established independence from the British, the ex-British began their internal expansion and appropriation of land from the indigenous peoples. Once they had the land they needed workers to develop the land. Their British cousins in the Caribbean knew the value of the African farmer, and soon the US South were sending slave ships over to Africa, aptly covered in the US TV series “Roots”. But what was not discussed greatly was the destruction of African civilisations, civilisations that had started in advance of their white counterparts, but by the time the lifeblood of youth had been drained out of them there was little left.
Then enters guilt. Europeans and Americans considered themselves civilised, it would not be right to enslave equals. Slowly over these centuries 17th -19th there grew the myth of the inferiority of the black man, until eventually little could be gained from further enslavement as slave revolts were costing too much to suppress. Abolition movements in the US and the UK were allowed to develop to salve the respective consciences – after the damage had been done.
Whilst slavery had been abolished and the civilisations destroyed, the job was not complete. Towards the end of the 19th century mineral wealth was discovered in many African countries – particularly of the South. As with the Crusades a religious masquerade hid the real intent, and a missionary movement was at the forefront of the exploitation of sub-Saharan Africa. In South Africa gold and diamonds needed a workforce, and the virtual enslavement by the Aparthied regime had the superiority of the white man at its core. Throughout the rest of sub-Saharan Africa European colonies gave way to divide-and-rule puppet governments that survived beyond independence struggles. And then as described in Millenium history, the Second World War was manipulated to leave a global US neo-colonial hegemony.
And the process was complete. The advanced civilisations of Egypt, Nubia, Meroe and Kush had become Arab colonies, and become cash-crop land that feeds western children before the starving of their own countries. A.D. white appropriated from black.
This is a consequence of the facebook discussion I got in. I am concerned the tone of consensus is turning so I have just blogged this:-
The UK was coming out of their dark ages of the first millenium. The French had invaded, had assimilated, and the ruling landowners of the monarchy had established the beginnings of wage slavery using serfs to work the land. As a result they had started to accumulate wealth within the UK giving the monarchy sufficient money to go off on the Crusades during the 12th and 13th centuries to take the spoils that the Arabs had taken from Africa through invasion and slavery. With their increased plunder the aristocracy began to establish their armies but were not yet sufficiently strong to fight the Spanish. Meanwhile the Spanish were appropriating the gold of the Americas, Central and Southern, and Columbus (Portuguese) “discovered” America at the end of the 15th century. Around this same time the British monarchy had accumulated enough money to steal the gold from the Spanish, so a war with Spain was started.
By the beginning of the 17th century they had accumulated the Spanish wealth and were looking to profit from this money. During the 16th century they had invested their acquired “Spanish gold” in the pirates who had continued the Spanish tradition of exploiting the Caribbean, but did not consider exploiting the US as there was no apparent wealth there. However there was the possibility of farming land there, and the monarch and the investors could benefit from this – the root meaning of colony is farm. So they loaned out money for the ships that established the colonies in the US.
Once in the US these farmers soon found it easy to establish farms there. The indigenous people lived in harmony with the land, and did not consider the issue of “land-ownership”. British aristocracy had long learned that owning land meant that they could use serfs and get rent, so it was second nature to them to establish ownership and use that established ownership as a means of profiteering. Exploiting the indigenous Americans was easy. The British sent over troops to defend the colonies (farms) they had appropriated. Over a period of 150 years these colonies started to develop, and the monarchy recognised that there was potential revenue so began to establish taxation systems. However they misjudged the “loyalty” of the colonists, and the colonists did not want to pay taxes.
By the beginning of the 18th century the colony had begun to establish its own landowners, and they too had begun to establish their own class system. These landowners had sufficient money to create their own army, and with investment from non-British European banks they fought for independence. Being sufficiently versed in British politics they realised that to maintain the budding wage slavery they needed to give the appearance that it was all the people who had created independence. The constitution was developed which gave the appearance of democracy, and they established a political system which was controlled by the landowners.
Now that they didn’t have to waste all that money paying the monarchy taxes, these landowners were able to expand their territories. With their ties to the banking system they had sufficient armaments to backup their expansionism, and the wealth of this upper class increased. With industrialisation they also had the money to invest in plant and develop industrialised wage slavery. With the expansion into distant lands mineral wealth was discovered further fuelling industrial development.
In the 19th century gold was mined increasing their wealth and then black gold was found fuelling the technological developments of the motor car etc. Over the 19th and 20th century this class of landowners incorporated the finance sector and grew richer and richer. Meanwhile the colonial powers of Europe were destroying themselves over Africa. In the second decade a war was fought between Britain and Germany over African territories, but these were the same class fighting each other. The British upper class was connected to the German upper class – they were the same finance families and the monarchy also had German connections, so rather than hit home their victory a treaty was established that allowed the German upper class to continue to make their profits. This backfired when the German upper class received financial support from the US thus establishing Hitler into power further destabilising the European situation.
Through Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan the US recognised the possibility of global hegemony, and when the European forces had completely depleted themselves American forces went into Europe to establish their hegemony. Over the second half of the 20th century independence movements grew in Africa, but the colonial countries had learnt how to maintain some control – divide-and-rule colonialism. So the current neo-colonial situation was established. Following the second world war the US had established dominion over the esrtwhile Europen powers, and these European powers had maintained economic power over the independent African nations continuing to establish their wealth. NATO was established to maintain this state of affairs.
As a result of the Second World War the profit-making of the military-industrial-complex was established and with the development of the Cold War and the arms race they further expanded their profits maintaining their global hegemony with what John Stockwell described as the Third World War. The US upper class historically had learnt the connection between armaments and profits so it was quite natural that this MIC would develop. The MIC very easily linked in with the rich and powerful families that had been established in the 19th and early 20th centuries. With the continued exploitation of the neocolonial situation through financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank backed up by one-sided trade agreements such as GATT loosely fitting into the nomenclature of Free Trade, the upper class in the US became entrenched becoming the 1% who are known and loved today.
This history has a millenial continuity. The players do not suddenly develop a conscience as required by a Founding Fathers perspective. Even if I knew US history I am not sure I could give factual evidence for this analysis, but that does not make it false.