Collapsing Markets and Conking Out Banks, by Andrew W. Taylor

By Andrew W Taylor

The way in which U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson explained paying off 700 billion dollars worth of US hi-financial “toxic debt” reminded me of the whiny self-agonising of the fornicator compelled to wear a condom: “I hate the fact that we have to do this. But it is better than the alternative.”

The world’s hitherto bacchanalian bankers, complacent finance ministers and conniving corporate CEOs have been seized with panic since the fall of Lehman Brothers, one of the world’s chief investment banks. They are no longer "at ease in Sion".
Lehman’s collapse summoned up fearsome spectres for the mandarins of the world economy. Where in blazes was this going, -- toward a 1973 style-recession that ended the post WW2 capitalist boom? Or, more fearsome, towards a 1930s style global cataclysm? Or …worse…?

We hear the occasional booster-ish “expert” portend the present crisis is now over, and that the economy must just run its self-correcting crash course. This is a total nonsense, since this time round, no one knows when or how a crashing code-blue capitalism will ease off, end up, or sputter out.

As is obvious from their actions, the “G-20” leaders are hoping against hope that monster-sized infusions of tax-payers’ capital may avert the whole damn thing going down the plug hole.

However, incurring fantastic new levels of public debt at a time when the Bush-Cheney legacy has left a bill of over a trillion dollar debt is not an unambiguous ‘answer’. What is the West’s “Whence and Whither”?
Is this crisis just starting or almost over? Is it the result of a handful of greedy bankers? Will increased regulation of the Market bring us back safe into harbour – until the storm is over-passed? Formerly comfortable laissez-faire economists are openly asking if all will be well if the Nations restore the social-democratic policies of J. M. Keynes. Will all be right again if we accept the serfdom of the Mixed Economy?

Or is this crisis pointing to a fundamental failure of the Capitalist System itself, a system premised on cyclical boom and bust, on the reserve army of the unemployed, and the underemployed?. The Powers do not want people thinking deeply about political-economy in a time of crisis. The Ruling Class knows from 20th century history that over time sustained economic deprivation produces a radicalization of class-conscious citizens. And they fear us. Let us think hard and note well the lessons History is teaching us in this scoundrel time of a rotten system. It is time for fightback: for tenant organisation, rent-strikes, repo-resistance squads, for councils of the unemployed and all-sided resistance.

Character of the Secular Order Now Demanded by the Liturgy

THIS EXCERPT is taken from F. Hasting's Smyth: Discerning the Lord's Body; the rationale of a Catholic democracy. Louisille, The Closter Pr.,1946. Smyth was the Superior of an Anglo-Catholic Religious Order for Men at Cambridge, Mass called "The Society of the Catholic Commonwealth. But the most significant work of 'The SCC' were the cells of layfolk or "Members Secular" who met regularly, eating and drinking together "usque ad hilaritatem," following Thomas Aquinas's precept, and working out among themselves the theological and political issues of the moment. These lay-people in the 1940s and 50s were active in Trade Unions, in progressive Education , in anti-War action, in projects assisting the CPC. They were a precursor of the "Base Communities" of the Latin American Liberation Theology movement of the 1970s and ff. There was a very active group in Montreal who lived as a Co-op. Dan Heap when a young Anglican Seminarian and Priest, and his wife, were members of "the coop"
by: Andrew W Taylor
_____________________________________________________________________________

"...Among the organized economic movements which hold desirable potentialities for Christians are those of organized labor, because labor organizations, whatever their very human corruptions and disunities, can be seen objectively as forces tending towards a greater economic justice within our present capitalist system. They are also potential bu!warks of popular democratic authority within some future radical change of this system in the direction of a socialist reorganization of the economic order.

The progressive economic advantages of the wage-earning class of people lie in the direction of socialist change. The great organized power of this class, when directed to take action for its own material advantage is at the same time taking concurrent steps toward radical reconstitution of society upon this kind of cooperative basis. Therefore, this class moves historically, even when it does not consciously recognize the fact, in a Christian direction. That labor organizations are often motivated by considerations of immediate "self-interest" does not vitiate the objective fact that this same self-interest fortunately corresponds to a step in the direction of socialism. This is why members of Christian Sacramental groups ought to fight on the side of secular labor organizations, and not be put off at this time by their supposed selfishness or by their present corruptions. These latter vices are not peculiar to wage-workers. They are found even more firmly entrenched among the forces of secular reaction. Christians must make their choice of allegiance in this situation. Let it be that of the interests of labor, because in the hands of labor rests the future welfare of the vast majority of mankind. At this present moment the workers may not be sought for in public counsel; not sit in the judges' seat; they may not declare justice and judgment; and they may not be found where men speak indirectly in complicated analogies. Yet without these cannot a city be inhabited, nor can men either dwell or go up and down in their towns. It is the workers who will maintain the fabric of the world. 3

Among the corresponding political movements of our time, Christians should select without fear the secular political groupings of the left. For, as the late Archbishop of Canterbury has pointed out, the extreme left of the Communists has social objectives which are basically Christian in their constitution. 4 They are those of a vastly greater economic justice than we now possess in the capitalist democracies of the west. Potentially they allow for a more deeply penetrating and equably distributed democratic control.

1962-1963, REGIME CHANGE IN CANADA BY THE U.S. "LESTER PEARSON KENNEDY'S NUCLEAR PATSY."

1962-1963, Canada: 'Knocking Over' "Dief the Chief"

http://www.peace.ca/regimechangeincanada.htm
A Plot "Made in the U.S."
By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade.

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker

http://coat.ncf.ca/

In 1962, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Livingston Merchant, and his Second Secretary Charles Kisselyak, fuelled a plot among the Canadian Air Forces, Canadian journalists and others to dispose of Prime Minister Diefenbaker.
Kennedy hated Dief largely for his anti-nuclear stance. Merchant and other U.S. embassy officers with espionage backgrounds, met at Kisselyak's home in Ottawa to feed journalists with spaghetti, beer and anti-Diefenbaker/pronuclear propaganda. Among the many participants in these off-the-record briefings was Charles Lynch of Southam News. Diefenbaker later denounced these reporters as "traitors" and "foreign agents." He lashed out against Lynch on a TV program saying, "You were given briefings as to how the Canadian government could be attacked on the subject of nuclear weapons and the failure of the Canadian government to do that which the U.S. dictated."
Merchant and Kisselyak work-ed with RCAF Wing Commander Bill Lee and NORAD's number two man, Canadian Air Marshall Roy Slemon. Air Marshall Hugh Campbell and the chair of Canada's chiefs of staff, Air Marshall Frank Miller also approved Lee's campaign. Diefenbaker's avidly pronuclear Defence Minister, Douglas Harkness, also knew of Lee's effort.
As head of RCAF public relations, Lee went to Washington twice a month to confer with U.S. authorities. "It was a flat-out campaign," he later said. "We identified key journalists, business and labour, key Tory hitters, and...Liberals.... We wanted people with influence on members of cabinet. In the end the pressure paid off."
In 1962, new U.S. ambassador, William Butterworth, continued the "flat-out campaign" by holding discrete meetings at the U.S. embassy to exert influence on Canadian journalists.
Lester Pearson was the President's choice. Kennedy gave the go-ahead to his friend and America's leading pollster, Lou Harris, to become the Liberal's secret campaign advisor in the 1962 election. Diefenbaker survived with a minority government.
The plot to bring down Canada's government came to a head in January, 1963. On Jan.3, top U.S. Air Force General Lauris Norstad held an Ottawa press conference. Prompted by questions from Lynch, and other reporters briefed by U.S. intelligence, Norstad criticized Canada's antinuclear stance. On Jan. 12, Pearson announced his new policy of supporting U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada. In protest, Pierre Trudeau called Pearson the "defrocked priest of peace" and refused to run for the Liberals.

The coup's final blow came when the U.S. State Department issued a press release which called Diefenbaker a liar on nuclear issues (Jan. 30). This tactic was suggested by Willis Armstrong, head of the State Department's Canada Desk in Washington. Butterworth added his suggestions and sent his senior embassy advisor, Rufus Smith, to Washington to draft it. "With Armstrong chairing, half a dozen officials from State, the White House and the Pentagon...shaped...the rebuke." The draft was polished by Under Secretary of State George McGhee and approved by acting Secretary of State, George Ball, and national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy.
The Canadian media had a heyday attacking Diefenbaker. Fights broke out in Cabinet. Diefenbaker recalled Canada's ambassador from the U.S. On Feb. 5, Defence Minister Harkness announced his resignation and Pearson called for a non-confidence vote. Dief's minority government fell, or rather, it was 'knocked over.'
Kisselyak was the U.S. embassy's contact to Pearson's election campaign. The Liberals had the strong advantages of a friendly media and Harris' state-of-the-art, computerized polling tactics. Diefenbaker, facing a primed hostile media, ran a stridently anti-U.S. campaign. Pearson's victory was hailed by newspapers across North America. Within days, the new External Affairs Minister, Paul Martin Sr., was approached by Butterworth to negotiate the acceptance of U.S. nuclear weapons. The warheads were deployed in Canada on New Year's Eve and there was partying in Washington.

Sources: Knowlton Nash, Kennedy and Diefenbaker, 1990 and Floyd Rudmin "Is the Sky Falling, or What?," Feb. 20, 1995

For more material relating to the US role subverting Canadian democracy, refer to these excellent articles by Prof. Floyd Rudmin: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ucurrent/uc5/5-rudmin.html
http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/canal70.html
http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/canal57.html
http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/canal79.html

=======================================================================

Key Quotations on the events of January 1963


President John F. Kennedy said the U.S. would take a stronger leadership role in NATO "even at the risk of offending sensitive allies."
(AP interview, Jan.2)

On General Norstad's Media conference, Jan. 3

"[Norstad's] purpose was to establish a basis for Pearson's conversion to U.S. nuclear policy."
(Diefenbaker)

"Kennedy sent Norstad to do this hatchet job on us. It was American imperialism of the highest order."
(Alvin Hamilton, Agriculture minister)

"This was another American turn of the screw to bring down the Conservative government."
(Charles Ritchie, Canada's ambassador to the U.S.)

On Pearson decision to reverse Liberal Policy and accept U.S. nuclear warheads into Canada (if elected), Jan. 12

"Kennedy achieved his dearest Canadian wish. Pearson progressed... to embracing the U.S. position on arming with nuclear weapons the Bomarcs and, no doubt, yielding to U.S. demands for storage of all manner of nuclear devices in Canada."
(Diefenbaker)

"A pure example of Pearson's willingness to accept the leadership of the U.S. on any vital matter."
(Hamilton)

Liberal policies were "made in the U.S."
(Tommy Douglas, NDP Leader)

On the U.S. press release, Jan. 30

"It was as deliberate an attempt as ever made to bring down a foreign government."
(Ed Ritchie, former under secretary of state for external affairs)

"This action by the State Department of the U.S. is unprecedented...it constitutes an unwarranted intrusion in Canadian affairs... [Canada] will not be pushed around or accept external domination or interference in making its decisions." "President Kennedy was going to obliterate us. I dared to say to him that Canada's policies would be made in Canada by Canadians."
(Diefenbaker)

"An absolute outrage, the most blatant, heavy-handed, intolerable piece of bullying."
(Charles Ritchie)

"Like a bombshell"
(a Diefenbaker aide)

"Brazen interference."
(Howard Green, External Affairs Minister)

"The U.S. should know from this Parliament that they are not dealing with Guatemala...or Cuba."
(Douglas)

"Kennedy decided the government had to go...[I] wouldn't put it past him to say, 'Get rid of the bastards.'"
(R.Bell, Immigration Minister)

"Very useful. Highly beneficial in advancing U.S. interests by introducing realism into a government which has made anti-Americanism... practically its entire stock in trade."
(William Butterworth, U.S. ambassador to Canada)

"For God's sake, it was like tossing a match into dried hay."
(Rufus Smith, senior advisor to Will Butterworth)

Trudeau's summary of the events of January 1963
"Do you think General Norstad... came to Ottawa as a tourist?... Do you think it was by chance that Pearson... quoted the authority of Norstad? Do you think it was inadvertant that on January 30 the state department gave a statement to journalists reinforcing Pearson's claims and crudely accusing Diefenbaker of lying? You think it was by chance that this press release provided the Leader of the Opposition with the arguments he used abundantly? You believe it was coincidence? Why [should] the U.S. treat Canada differently from Guatemala when reason of state requires it and circumstances permit?"
(Pierre E. Trudeau)

A Recessionary Class-Conscious Christmas Carol 2008

By Andrew Taylor



Naught the silent angels tell,
as the shills do make the sell.
All the missives sent on high,
are returned without reply.
Awaken all you nations, rise!
Let our actions rend the skies;
Let them see our Class's might
How we'll escalate the fight.
So our Christmas we'll keep well,
And their shills won't make the sell.

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media MEDIA ALERT: OBAMA - WIPING THE SLATE CLEAN

With thanks to John Andrew Hird for bringing this article to my attention
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9947
November 13, 2008
Appearance And Reality In The Relaunch Of Brand America

In 1997, the British media filled with talk of “historic” change. Blair’s victory that year “bursts open the door to a British transformation,” the Independent declared. (Neal Ascherson, ‘Through the door he can begin to create a freer land,’ The Independent, May 4, 1997)

A Guardian leader saluted the nation: “Few now sang England Arise, but England had risen all the same.” (Leader, ‘A political earthquake,’ The Guardian, May 2, 1997)

The editors predicted that, by 2007, Blair’s triumph would be seen as “one of the great turning-points of British political history... the moment when Britain at last gave itself the chance to construct a modern liberal socialist order.” (Ibid)

The Observer assured readers that the Blair government would create "new worldwide rules on human rights" and implement "tough new limits on arms sales." (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=5063)

This, after all, was the dawn of Blair’s “ethical” foreign policy.

It was a dawn of the dead - Blair left behind him the almost unimaginable horror of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A rare poll conducted by Ipsos last January of 754 Iraqi refugees in Syria found that “every single person interviewed by Ipsos reported experiencing at least one traumatic event in Iraq prior to their arrival in Syria.” (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=479616762)

UNHCR estimated that one in five of those registered with the agency in Syria over the previous year were classified as "victims of torture and/or violence." The survey showed that fully 89 per cent of those interviewed suffered depression and 82 per cent anxiety. This was linked to terrors endured before they fled Iraq – 77 per cent of those interviewed reported being affected by air bombardments, shelling or rocket attacks. Eighty per cent had witnessed a shooting... and so on. (Ibid)

John Pilger was a lonely voice in 1997 warning that Blair was a dangerous fraud, a neocon in sheep’s clothing. As Pilger later pointed out, the media could hardly plead ignorance:

“Blair's Vichy-like devotion to Washington was known: read his speeches about a new order led by America. His devotion to Rupert Murdoch, who flew him and Cherie Booth around the world first class, was known. His devotion to an extreme neoliberal Thatcherite economics was known...” (John Pilger, Blair’s bloody hands,’ March 4, 2005; http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=5063)

Over the past two weeks - one decade and three wars later - the same media have been insisting, as one, that US president-elect Barrack Obama is another “new dawn”. A Guardian leader observed:

“They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world...

“Today is for celebration, for happiness and for reflected human glory. Savour those words: President Barack Obama, America's hope and, in no small way, ours too.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/06/barackobama-uselections2008)

In the Guardian’s news section, Oliver Burkeman described the victory as “historic, epochal, path breaking”. But there was more:

“Just being alive at a time when it's so evident that history is being made was elating and exhausting.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/uselections2008-barackobama)