Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The People As Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II

The People as Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War Two exposes how Allied leaders in WWII were not trying to liberate people from Fascism but rather to strengthen the corporate elite's control over their own increasingly revolutionary domestic working classes.

The book is available at Amazon.com or directly from myself at the reduced price of $3.00 plus $4.50 shipping and handling in the U.S. To purchase directly, email me at spritzler@comcast.net and use Pay Pal:

Friday, August 12, 2011

The British ruling class foments and then uses the "riots"

It is clear from a host of reports online that the key cause of the recent rioting in England is that the rioters—some of the poorest people in England--are furious at how the police have been tormenting them prior to the rioting, and how the rulers of England have deprived them of jobs and the chance to enjoy the wealth that society produces. This is not a race thing, it is a class thing. (“Members of the Jewish community have joined the fray, with members of Tottenham’s Hassidic community reportedly gathered in the street on Saturday to heckle police.”)

British police harass non-whites worse than whites, just as the American police do. By saying that “this is not a race thing, it is a class thing” I mean that the fundamental conflict is class and not race, that the upper ruling class—not the “white race”—is the problem, and that racial discrimination is, itself, a divide-and-rule instrument used by the upper class to try to create racial resentments and turn working class people against each other along race or ethnic lines.
This is how one insightful person explains the violence:
“Violence is rarely mindless. The politics of a burning building, a smashed-in shop or a young man shot by police may be obscured even to those who lit the rags or fired the gun, but the politics are there. Unquestionably there is far, far more to these riots than the death of Mark Duggan, whose shooting sparked off the unrest on Saturday, when two police cars were set alight after a five-hour vigil at Tottenham police station. A peaceful protest over the death of a man at police hands, in a community where locals have been given every reason to mistrust the forces of law and order, is one sort of political statement. Raiding shops for technology and trainers that cost ten times as much as the benefits you’re no longer entitled to is another. A co-ordinated, viral wave of civil unrest across the poorest boroughs of Britain, with young people coming from across the capital and the country to battle the police, is another.

“Months of conjecture will follow these riots. Already, the internet is teeming with racist vitriol and wild speculation. The truth is that very few people know why this is happening. They don’t know, because they were not watching these communities. Nobody has been watching Tottenham since the television cameras drifted away after the Broadwater Farm riots of 1985. Most of the people who will be writing, speaking and pontificating about the disorder this weekend have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up in a community where there are no jobs, no space to live or move, and the police are on the streets stopping-and-searching you as you come home from school. The people who do will be waking up this week in the sure and certain knowledge that after decades of being ignored and marginalised and harassed by the police, after months of seeing any conceivable hope of a better future confiscated, they are finally on the news. In one NBC report, a young man in Tottenham was asked if rioting really achieved anything:

“’Yes,’ said the young man. ‘You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?’; "’Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you.’"
The British ruling class surely knew that inflicting police stop-and-search abusively on people whom they also deprived of jobs and hope for a decent life would eventually cause the victims to strike back in anger. Now we can see why the ruling class did this. They want to use the riots to frighten the rest of the British public into accepting the transformation of the U.K. into even more of a police state than it already is with surveillance cameras presently everywhere. The idea is to make most of the public feel that they need the ruling class to protect them from the poorest people. Here’s how Prime Minister Cameron is doing it:
Mr Cameron said: ‘To the law abiding people who play by the rules, and who are the overwhelming majority in our country, I say: the fightback has begun, we will protect you. If you've had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. And to the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say this: we will track you down... we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.’”
Also reported: “Ministers and the security services are planning draconian powers to shut down or disrupt mobile phone messaging services and social networks in times of civil disorder.”
What the British ruling class is doing here is the same as what the Israeli ruling class of billionaires and generals is doing to control Israeli Jews—attacking non-Jews to foment anger and their striking back in order to make Jews so fearful of non-Jews that they will feel they need the Israeli ruling class to protect them. And it is the same as what the American ruling class is doing to control Americans—attacking foreign people so viciously, most recently murdering Afghani and Pakistani civilians, that they strike back in anger, thus making Americans so afraid of “terrorists” that we will look for protection from the likes of our Nobel Peace Prize-winning War-mongerer in Chief and his Wall Street cronies enriching themselves to the tune of multiple trillions of dollars at the expense of all the rest of us.

Monday, August 01, 2011

Reform Congress?

Americans neither like nor trust Congress. A survey by ABC NewsWashington Post, May 19-23, 1989 found that 79% of Americans agreed that "most members of Congress will tell lies if they feel the truth will hurt them politically," 75% agreed that they "care more about special interests than they care about people like [themselves]", 71% that they "make campaign promises they have no intention of fulfilling," 66% that they "care more about keeping power than they do about the best interests of the nation" and 57% that they "make a lot of money using public office improperly." Does anybody think the reputation of Congress has risen since then?

This is why every now and then some people get enthusiastic about a proposal to reform Congress in some manner, such as denying members of Congress their special perks (like their superb health insurance) and their large salaries, or imposing term limits, or limiting the size of campaign donations, or providing public funds for election campaigns. (I have copied the latest such proposal below.) These reforms are all proposed as a way to make the politicians truly represent ordinary people whom they theoretically represent, rather than serve wealthy special interests or their own greedy selves.

But the problem is bigger than any of these reforms can solve. All of these reforms can be enacted (some already have been) but the problem will remain. The root of the problem is theextreme inequality that puts the real power in society in the hands of billionaires. National politicians cannot win elections without the support of the mass media, which are owned by the upper class plutocracy. This--not salary and benefit perks or any of the other things that the proposed reforms address--is why Congressional politicians serve the upper class instead of ordinary Americans. Their salary and perks are merely a symptom of the problem but not the cause. In fact, plenty of the politicians in Congress are independently wealthy and don’t need their salary or the health coverage perks. Forty-four percent of members of Congress are millionaires.

Very big problems require very big solutions. How do we solve the problem that our society is based on class inequality, one-dollar-one vote? How do we solve the problem that the mass media and all of the other key institutions in our society, including not only the corporations but the schools, labor unions, churches and foundations as well, are owned and controlled by the very wealthy. How do we solve the problem that politicians can only get elected by doing what the very wealthy want them to do?

The big solution that is required is a fundamental social revolution to remove power from the ruling plutocracy and create a society based on equality.

Small solutions like the recent proposed one, copied below, will not solve the big problem:

Congressional Reform Act of 2011 (Amendment 28 of the U.S. Constitution)

1. No Tenure and No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in officeand receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates the same as all other American people. The Social Security fund may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts with and for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so congressmen should serve their terms (no more than 2), then go home and find a job. Former congressmen cannot be lobbiest.