Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Month: March 2023

The tightening of the screw

Europe is currently undergoing a tightening of the screw. As most of you will have learnt from either Milton Friedman or Naomi Klein or both, crises (e.g. the 2008 financial crisis, Covid, the war in Ukraine, etc.) will be inexorably exploited by the powers-that-be. Result: the poor will become poorer, the rich richer. This is inevitable unless a concerted effort is made to change the tide, as was the case after the series of cataclysmic events constituted by WWI, the Spanish flue, the Great Depression and WWII.

I would urge you to read Thomas Piketty’s book “Capitalism and Ideology”, which is basically a history book. If you you do read it, you will probably find that it is one of the most important books you have ever worked your way through, because it answers a great many questions you may have asked yourself and many more that you probably never even thought to ask.

True, it’s a very large book, and most people don’t have time to read hundreds of pages. More’s the pity, because the author writes well, clearly and often humorously, not so much about violent wars but about the contradictions that caused them.

For those of you who want to take a shortcut, I have good news. Yes, I believe the man must care very deeply about the plight of our planet and the creatures, including humans, upon it, because a 156-page document called “Extracts” is freely available on his website. It’s the first item on the list:

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fr/ideology

The list also includes all the statistical graphs used in his book, and finally a link to the equivalent page in French.

I was initially only interested in the fluctuations of inequality in the 20th and 21st centuries. Only reluctantly did I go back to read, with rapidly growing fascination, what he had written about the previous periods of human history, because it all turns out to be interrelated.

Still, since I live here — in Europe — and now, I find that developments since the 1980s in Europe and the USA are frightening. Here are a few examples where Thomas Piketty’s graphs speak for themselves:

Inequality 1900–2020

Labour productivity : Europe vs United States

Growth and progressive taxation in the U.S. 1870-2020

There is something uncanny about the years 1980 to 1995, isn’t there. For most of us, the leitmotif was that everything started getting a little worse at about that time. To begin with, just a little, and hardly anybody noticed. But we’re noticing now!

Piketty also writes extensively about other countries, such as India, China and Iran. You’d be surprised by what he and his colleagues have uncovered, very surprised, in fact.

Piketty writes that he is an optimist. “We”, that is not only the Western countries but also countries like India Japan and Iran, were able to turn things around after WWII, dramatically reducing inequality and improving the welfare of lower and middle class people. I believe he is trying to convince us that “we” can do it again.

Libya again

Why, you may be asking, am I writing about Libya when everybody else is writing about Iraq?

  • Well, for one thing, for that very reason; because everybody else is writing about Iraq.
  • Secondly, while the US demolition of Iraq happened 20 years ago, that of Libya is more recent and therefore more indicative of the current foreign policy outlook in Western countries.
  • Thirdly: While the war against Iraq met with considerable resistance in some of the Western press, the war against Libya met almost none. The press had been house-trained: no mainstream outlet peed on expensive carpets, so the general public was basically in the dark about the lies that legitimised the bombings.
  • Finally, I have been appraised of information that I have not previously known about.

And that brings me straight to the rather surreal aspect of this ignominious war, which some countries, not least my own, waged against a country that was, from the 1990s on, one where even you or I might have wanted to live.

Libyan Government revenue greatly exceeded expenditure in the 2000s. This surplus revenue was invested in a sovereign wealth fund, the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), which was conservatively valued at $53 billion in June 2010.11 The United Nations Human Development Report 2010—a United Nations aggregate measure of health, education and income—ranked Libya as the 53rd most advanced country in the world for human development and as the most advanced country in Africa.

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Report (HC 119)

My final point, that of information that has only recently been brought to my attention, is no more and no less than the above reference:

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (i.e. the UK H of C)
report on
Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options
Third Report of Session 2016–17

This report is a pretty damning document: For one thing, it explains, there was basically no truth in the claim that Gaddafi was planning to kill the protesters in Benghazi – on the contrary:

Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. (etc.) (§ 32)

… émigrés opposed to Muammar Gaddafi exploited unrest in Libya by overstating the threat to civilians and encouraging Western powers to intervene. In the course of his 40-year dictatorship Muammar Gaddafi had acquired many enemies in the Middle East and North Africa, who were similarly prepared to exaggerate the threat to civilians. (etc) (§ 35)

An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge. (§ 36)

Ibid

Another matter was that Western intervention “shifted the military balance in the Libyan civil war in favour of the rebels”, ” turned a blind eye to the supply of weapons to the rebels” and, in short:

The combination of coalition airpower with the supply of arms, intelligence and personnel to the rebels guaranteed the military defeat of the Gaddafi regime. On 20 March 2011, for example, Muammar Gaddafi’s forces retreated some 40 miles from Benghazi following attacks by French aircraft. If the primary object of the coalition intervention was the urgent need to protect civilians in Benghazi, then this objective was achieved in less than 24 hours.

Ibid

Etc, etc. Read the report if you are at all in doubt about the cynicism of the entire operation, the purpose of which was, from the very start, to orchestrate regime change, not “to protect civilians”. I really cannot fathom how the House of Commons has been allowed to publish it, if not to humiliate the French:

A further insight into French motivations was provided in a freedom of information disclosure by the United States State Department in December 2015. On 2 April 2011,Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State:

According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

The sum of four of the five factors identified by Sidney Blumenthal equated to the French national interest. The fifth factor was President Sarkozy’s political self-interest.

Ibid

What did we, readers of the mainstream press, know about Libya in 2011, when France’s President Sarkozy started insisting on mililtary intervention in Libya? Did we know about Libya’s reserves of oil? Did we know about the vast network of underground pipelines and aqueducts, built under his rule which brought high-quality fresh water from ancient underground aquifers deep in the Sahara, and which, from 1991, supplied much-needed irrigation and drinking water to populous cities and farming areas in Libya’s north? This was the so-called “Great Mande-Made_River“.

Gone now. Alas, all gone.

Did the mainstream media tell us that the United Nations Human Development Report (UNDP) 2010 – a “United Nations aggregate measure of health, education and income”– ranked Libya as the 53rd most advanced country in the world for human development and as the most advanced country in Africa? A country with a free national health service, free education and free electricity?

Did the mainstream media tell us about what emerged from Hillary Clinton’s 1700 emails released by Wikileaks about her role in the US engagement in Libya?

Unlike the Iraq war, the US and NATO crimes against humanity in Libya went practically unnoticed. The NATO countries’ intervention lasted less than a year, and since no ground forces were involved (at least not officially), no lives were lost on “our side”.

Although, the consequences of the war were disastrous for Libya, for Africa as a whole, and, indirectly, for Europe, (but not – I repeat NOT – for the USA) mainstream media has not taken pains to inform the public about the real facts.

Like the Iraq war, the war on Libya in 2011 was based on lies, the most important of which was that Gaddafi was preparing genocide against the people of Benghazi. The annihilation of Libya was officially undertaken for “the protection of civilians”.

Protection of civilians, my foot.

Anger

I am just a common inhabitant in a country of just five million – just one country of 195. I live in the West – i.e. the part of the world that makes up just 15 per cent, or so, of the world’s population.

Countries in the West take orders from an infinitesimal minority of people in the USA, where the rest of the 331 million have no say whatsoever in the greater scheme of things. Just like me.

I find to my surprise that I have something else in common with them: Anger.

Many people in the USA are angry and have been so for a long time. During the Trump presidency and its immediate aftermath, we even had the impression, here in Europe, that the self-defined “greatest country in the world” was on the brink of civil war.

Mainstream media no longer highlights the risk of civil war in the USA – but I’m pretty sure that the anger is still there, lurking under the relatively smooth mainstream surface. US American anger is presumably as variegated as is anger in the rest of the world. There are for instance a number of widely held views in the US that I do not share. (Now that I think of it, the European press tends to highlight the most outlandish of US popular trends. I will not mention examples now, because my goal here is to explore common ground.)

In terms of common ground, I suspect Europeans and US citizens share a growing sense of distrust of “the system”, “politicians”, “the elite”, “the press”, “the financial services” – whatever, and please do not even think of adding “the Jews”!

Now, since I dropped that word, let me make it eminently crystal clear: Being Jewish does not – NOT – mean being politically or financially this, that or the other, nor does it mean being morally or otherwise responsible for the ongoing attempted genocide of the Palestinian people. Being Jewish means no more and no less than being, for instance, Catholic or Protestant or Moslem or Agnostic (I write this notwithstanding my great admiration for the novelist Philip Roth who would have disagreed with me, maybe) or even US American.

Now, where was I? Yes. Anger. Distrust. We have been, most of us, taught since early childhood to blindly trust and honour our countries, our governments, our authorities. In Communist Eastern Europe, people have learnt to be less credulous, although they love and honour their countries no less than we love ours. But I put to you that citizens of Eastern European countries are more inured to lies on the part of “the system”, “politicians”, “the elite”, “the press”, “the banks” – whatever – than the rest of us. They are more realist.

We in the West trusted our authorities blindly, and many of us are now angry. Maybe we believed in what was impossible. Maybe “honesty” exists only in children’s books. At any rate, I, for one, have noticed with growing frequency over the past years (maybe I had previously been naive) that Government spokespersons, representatives of political parties, corporations and financial services have been scrupulously trained to lie blithely when lies are “required”, in other words in the service of their employers’ self-interest. Communications advisors are extremely well-paid, by the way, presumably to compensate for psychological damage from fears of an eternity spent in whatever hell their particular religion has in store for them.

For the record, I wish to add that honesty between people who love each other is not, definitely not, limited to children’s books. Such honesty exists, thank goodness, and is still held in high regard.

But this post is about anger, anger as opposed to peace. Because I fear that most of us do not want peace. For one thing, we do not accept the implications of peace as they are presented to us. In the case of Afghanistan, for instance, the implications of peace were that women would be horribly suppressed. And yes, women are now horribly suppressed. In the case of Ukraine, peace might mean that parts of Ukraine (the Russian-speaking parts) must be seceded to Russia, and that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO. In the case of Israel, the implication of peace would be that Israel relinquishes the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967 in defiance of “international law”. Whatever your views on these implications, there are certainly enough people who are so adamantly opposed to them, that they will prefer war to peace.

Now, I particularly dislike the way women are treated in Afghanistan. However, I very much doubt that economic sanctions, not to mention prolonged outright occupation would ever have had the desired effect on the proud Afghan men. Battering the men would never have made them see what we consider to be the errors of their ways.

My experience – but I know that many would disagree with me – is that if you beat a recalcitrant child, you may cow him, you may find him submissive, but he will hate you, deep down, hate everything you stand for, and he will not weep at your funeral, though he might weep for himself. Had we left the arrogant Afghan cats alone, they would sooner or later have come out of hiding and asked for milk, just like all cats. Then we could have bargained for women’s rights.

But we – the West (i.e. governments of the West) – are not cats, not dogs, nor even sharks. We are just plain stupid. We destroy everything we touch with our arrogance, our conceit and not least with our financial tricks and shenanigans.

As for the Palestinians: Has anyone ever been willing to go to war for them? Alas, they are on their own. Not only must they try to defend what little is left of what is actually their country (according to the UN), those of them who never fled from Israel after 1949 are treated as third class citizens. They have no petroleum, no rare-earth elements, they are hardly worth guano, i.e. shit, from an investor’s perspective. So nobody will send them guns and tanks and fighter planes with which they can defend themselves.

Not that I would want us to do so. I merely roundly condemn any country that supports and finances the oppressor, and I recommend – yes, only recommend – that other countries boycott (not sanction) Israel, as long as it flagrantly practices apartheid in contravention of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and occupies territory to which it has no right.

Uganda is another country to which we are not sending guns and tanks and fighter planes. Yet, Uganda is harshly suppressing homosexuals. That is very regrettable. But so did we in the West until just half a century ago. Uganda must find its way. I am glad that, so far, we have not declared war on Uganda (but you never know).

Live and let live! Not war. Not sanctions. Not bullying.

We are so sure, here in the West, that our way is the best way. That our way is the only acceptable way, that we have seen the light.

I can assure you, in case you missed the point, that if there is one thing we haven’t seen here, it’s the light.

Look back in horror –Libya 2011

In 2011, NATO bombed Libya to Kingdom Come.

Blasting a well-functioning country off the map was not – I repeat, NOT – in compliance with UN Security Council resolution 1973 (Incidentally, no less than five countries, including Germany, abstained from voting on that occasion).

The said resolution authorised action to “protect” civilians.

…. take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1973

The said resolution did not authorise reducing the country to rubble. It didn’t even authorise forcing regime change, which (as we now know) was what the freedom and Democracy-loving countries unofficially set out to do.

Now it is true that Gaddafi was a dictator, and it is also true that he did not take kindly to the Arab Spring demonstrations. Yes, the Arab Spring debacle evolved into a civil war in Libya as in Syria, and during civil wars, crimes against humanity tend to be committed. But unlike many other countries and like Syria and Iraq, Libya had, until we intervened to defend our blessed Democratic values (or interests), been a well-functioning state.

Public education in the country became free and primary education compulsory for both sexes. Medical care became available to the public at no cost, but providing housing for all was a task the RCC government was unable to complete. Under Gaddafi, per capita income in the country rose to more than US$11,000, the 5th highest in Africa. The increase in prosperity was accompanied by a controversial foreign policy, and increased domestic political repression.

Wikipedia as at 17 March 2023

All of this was destroyed as we know. Libya has ever since been a failed state. The freedom-loving Democratic countries in the West, the countries that so love protecting other (particularly oil-producing) countries’ freedoms, apparently prefer failed states to “controversial foreign policies”.

Norway was apparently rather gung-ho in Libya, dropping bombs in areas where nobody else wanted to do so, including urban areas. We continued to do so, not only long after the Libyan military had been defeated, long long after the protesters in Benghazi whom we initially set out to “protect” no longer needed protection. Since Gaddafi was systematically described in the press as the Devil incarnate (just like Putin), the Norwegian press (with the honourable exception of Klassekampen and Ny tid) and its readers loudly applauded all of this bombing, hardly noticing that civilian lives also were lost to NATO bombs. (We will never know how many of them there were, but Amnesty International has painstakingly collected impressive documentation.) There are those who maintain that Norway dropped more bombs on Libya than any other NATO country.

Norway dropped 588 bombs on Libya. There are those who have suggested that there is a link between Norway’s enthusiastic performance there and the ascent of the former Norwegian Prime Minister to the post of Secretary General of NATO. Of course I would never suggest anything of the kind.

Neither NATO nor NATO countries have apologised for the havoc they left in the territory that once was Libya. Nor have they paid compensation to those (civilians) whose loved ones, homes and livelihoods they exterminated. Norway, the neocon Norwegian press and the increasingly neocon readers of the Norwegian press are no exception. After all, Gaddafi was a dictator, wasn’t he.

© 2025 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑