Who wants and causes wars.

 Who wants and causes wars.

 

 In 1961, during the transfer of the presidency to John F. Kennedy, US President Eisenhower said in his speech: "We must not allow the military-industrial complex to gain undue influence in government." In 2018, out of the 1.8 trillion dollars spent globally on military expenses, 650 billion (36%) was spent by the US. Overall, the US spends 1 trillion dollars annually for military purposes. The US spends more on military purposes than the next 13 nations combined. In 2010, the US accounted for 53% of global arms sales. In 2020, US President Trump stated: "The leaders of the American Pentagon only want to get involved in wars, so that all these wonderful companies that manufacture bombs, planes, and any other defense material, can be happy." The same president appointed 3 defense ministers, all of whom had ties to the American "defense" industry. Half of the senior officials in the Defense Department have ties to "defense" industries. In 2017, Trump unilaterally decided on the attack with 59 Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian airbase. I do not have data on the influence of the "defense" industry on the media, but out of the top 100 American newspapers, 47 had a main article about the air strikes. 39 were in favor, 7 were ambivalent, and only one was opposition to the attack. 8 out of 10 leading newspapers supported the air strikes. Surveys recorded one with 51% support for the air strikes and 40% opposition, and another with 57% in favor and 36% against. Because Trump is a Republican, someone might think that the "democratic" Biden would be different. Well, I learned that this guy pressured Clinton in 1999 to bomb Serbia and then boasted about it (in those bombings, Americans killed 2,153 civilians, including 646 children). Also, this gentleman recently appointed former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as the President of the US Defense Policy Council. Based on this information, every good-hearted person should wonder: Have Eisenhower's fears been confirmed? Has the military-industrial complex in the US grown to govern and decide with the secret services? Have the US evolved into a monstrous country that cannot continue to exist without armaments, wars, interventions, blackmail, crimes, and bloodshed? A global watchdog that destroys any development effort outside the zombie capitalism they maintain with all their might, to prevent its collapse? Today, on the issue of the war in Ukraine, some "leftists and progressives" and "peace-lovers" (innocent "doves") maintain a neutral stance and say that we have capitalists and imperialists on both sides.

They forget that exists capitalism and capitalism. Capitalism and the USA, capitalism and Switzerland, and Sweden and India and Iran. And in the 2nd World War, there were capitalists on both sides. There were no "innocent doves" and villains. Yet some chose a camp. What fundamentally distinguished the 2 factions was the ideology and practice of Nazism.

Today, the fundamental issue is nuclear weapons. Not for their "reduction" or relocation, but for their elimination and prohibition forever. But for nuclear weapons, a separate article is needed.

If we need to mention something here about their significance, then Einstein's words give the essence of the matter: "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

P.S. To the peace-loving (well-intentioned): Why don't you ask your leadership and the other leaderships participating in the condemnation front of the "Russian invasion" and demand that all together, the USA recognize and condemn all violations of international law by themselves (the USA), and agree to be referred to an international court those officials accused of war crimes. Let's see what they will answer you. And then let's all condemn the "Russian invasion" together. Otherwise, it is being used as a pretext for alignment with the plans of the USA.

 

Wednesday, March 2, 2022

George Papanikolaou

 

The Responsibilities of K Karamanlis in the Murder of Grigoris Lambrakis.

 

The Responsibilities of K Karamanlis in the Murder of Grigoris Lambrakis.

A few days ago was the anniversary of the murder of MP Grigoris Lambrakis on May 22, 1963, by paramilitary groups with the cooperation of the police. Who is responsible for this murder? A description of Greece at that time is enough to make clear to everyone the identity of those responsible.

From 1956, Greece was governed by the ERE party with Prime Minister K. Karamanlis (who had been designated as prime minister by the king with the consent of the Americans). Although the ERE statute provided for 9 Management Bodies, in the 8 years of the party's life, 6 never functioned (the General Assembly, the General Council, the Executive Committee, the Study Committees, the Economic Committee, and the Higher Disciplinary Council).

The functions of the 7th Body, the General Secretariat, were mostly carried out by public services (systematic exploitation of the corrupt political policy). The party leader (8th Body) and Prime Minister Karamanlis were the absolute rulers of the party (the statute lacks any provision for the election or re-election of the leader). The official organization system of the party was a simple facade, behind which the power of a man who had become the sole body of administration and decision-making of ERE was exercised.

The subordination of the Parliamentary Group (9th Body) was absolute They called it "the gang". Papaligouras, minister of the Karamanlis governments, recounts: "The cabinet had practically ceased to function and Karamanlis dictated all decisions to the interested ministers." The ERE used every means to maintain the advantages of power. There was a fusion of party and state. The state treasury was transformed into a tool for enriching party clients. The distribution of secret funds granted to many ministries "took on absurd proportions" (according to Union of the Centre investigations). The Security Forces, under the pretext of fighting communism, had practically turned into a kind of praetorian guard of the government party. Practically unchecked power had been granted to mere executive bodies. In the "policed democracy" (as that regime was successfully named), although fundamental freedoms had not been abolished, the Security Forces nullified a large part of them. Karamanlis further strengthened the police state by nesting within it parastate actors (a network of state services and state-fed fascist organizations), official state thugs (TEA, etc.), and party affiliates (EKOF). Social certificates of ideology determined who would find work and who would not. The prosecutor in the trial of the murder of Lambrakis, Pavlos Delaportas, summed up the entire system in one paragraph: "Today, a confluence of thieves, rapists, perjurers, and all kinds of criminals appears as the protector of social regimes, as the guardian of sacred and saints and as a guardian of law and order." In the "violence and fraud" elections of 1961, in which ERE implemented the "Pericles Plan," armed groups knocked on doors at night and warned: "Anyone who does not vote for ERE will be exiled." A characteristic of the fraud was the 218 registered guards who declared the same two-story house as their residence. The extrajudicial deviation that led to the "Pericles Plan" was decided immediately after the 1958 elections (when EDA emerged as the official opposition with 24%), in a meeting of Karamanlis with his associates in Kifissia. The Plan was completed by the Army, in a committee of the HNDGS, with the participation of the later dictator G. Papadopoulos and his associate Odysseas Angelis. Regarding all of the above, Karamanlis repeatedly said and wrote that he knew nothing. He only governed (although it was rumored that he doubted even that). When the investigation, following the murder, began to unravel the myth of the "disappeared" networks that had been woven since 1958, Karamanlis resigned and fled to Paris under the pseudonym "Triantafyllidis." Relatively recently in Parliament (2013), a "person above suspicion" attributed to Karamanlis "only political responsibilities" for the murder of Gr. Lambrakis and he was recognized as a modernizer and reformer (because he allegedly promoted Parliamentarism against the power of the Throne and the Army). The kind of parliamentary reform and modernization that Karamanlis was promoting gives us an idea of the Constitutional Reform proposed by ERE on 21/2/1963, which spoke of a government of emergency powers and included measures such as criminalizing speeches or the vote of the Members of Parliament in the Parliament, establishment of a Special Court to ban parties, etc., with the rationale that "the parliamentary machine has become an obstacle to meeting the demands of the times." Karamanlis, even after the dictatorship, spoke of a "governed instead of governing democracy" (Papadopoulos' "plaster," in other words). "The government and I had no interest in the murder," Karamanlis said. So, why the efforts to obstruct the investigations and cover up the crime? [Dispatch from the "government's forensic doctor for all jobs" Kapsaskis, with his ridiculous arguments (Lambrakis broke his head falling on the asphalt), intervention in the interrogations of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court Kollias and a penalty/favor from the Minister of Justice when the interrogators accused him, attempted bribery of the 2 main witnesses by the coast guard officer Kamoutsi (who supposedly belonged to the part of the coast guard controlled by the government and did not know about the murder plan) with millions of drachmas (from his pocket?), also attempted bribery of the journalist Giorgos Romaios from Karamanlis' political office, and a bunch of others]. These are not called political responsibilities, but collaboration and cover-up and they have criminal responsibilities.

 

May 31, 2019

George Papanikolaou

 

Does society have rights over the wealth produced and how many?

 

Does society have rights over the wealth produced
and how many?

Inequality in society today has reached absurd heights and the process of wealth accumulation continues to accelerate.
In 2017, 8 people owned as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population (3. 6 billion people).
82% of the wealth created globally in 2017 ended up in the hands of the richest 1% of the world's richest people, while the poorest saw no increase in their incomes. The real incomes of the world's poorest people have risen by just $3 a year in the last 25 years.

In the US, in 2017 the 3 richest people have wealth equal to that of the poorest half of the population. In 2014, the richest 1% held 39% of the national wealth, up from 22% in 1980.
In Germany, 10% of the population controls 40% of the wealth.
In Europe, according to 2016 data, 10% of the population owns 37% of the total income.
The $5. 3 trillion held by the 500 richest people in the world (in 2017) is equivalent to the sum of the debts of 120 countries on earth.

Africa has huge oil reserves, is home to 98% of the world's diamond production, and 77% of the world's gold production. But Africa (but. . . ) is plagued by hunger, poverty and utter misery.
Joseph Stiglitz, economist, Nobel Prize for Economics: "Inequality and poverty among children is a moral trivialisation. The right-wingers argue that poverty is the result of laziness and bad choices. But children don't choose their parents. "
In America, 1 in 4 children live in poverty. In Greece 1 in 6.

This monstrous and obscene inequality that oppresses people's lives, in order to be accepted, is accompanied by an equally incredible propaganda to justify it, where the concept of framing plays an extremely important role. Research has shown that our perceptions and judgements are hugely influenced by the context in which the analysis is placed. Inequality is framed in such a way as to make it seem fair or at least acceptable, or it is implied that the price of limiting inequality would be heavy.

Alongside the monstrous and ever-accelerating increase in the concentration of wealth, we also have a huge increase in the social (or relative) impoverishment of people, i. e. the mismatch between their standard of living and the level of social needs, which are increasing in parallel with the gigantic increase in labour productivity and which remain unsatisfied, which creates huge and intolerable problems for people (this regardless of absolute impoverishment, which may be reduced). We are not just talking about increasing needs in education, housing, health, in the usual sense.

We have an epidemic of mental illness (in England 1 in 4 adults have been diagnosed with mental illness - and it's not the only country). Mental illness is consistently associated with deprivation, low income, unemployment, low education, poorer physical health. Cancer patients are affected by a disease where 90% of the damaging factors are environmental (i. e. industrial, more correctly, capitalist).
The voices against this absurdity, the disgrace and the decline of humanity, are heard like a whisper in the river of "information" and the demands they contain go as far as the "Tobin tax", a "fairer" redistribution of wealth or gratefully accepting the charity of the rich.

Does society have rights over the wealth produced and how much?
"Technology works with science and science works with  to move forward, so they are interlinked. For a technological discovery, theoretical knowledge from various sciences is necessary. For scientific discovery, technological equipment is necessary" [School Handbook on Technology].
Every inventor and innovator, in order to create his innovation, has relied on the vast amount of knowledge and progress accumulated by humanity. Isaac Newton put it correctly and analogically: 'If I could see further than anyone else, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants'.

People like Bill Gates, for example, achieved extraordinary achievements only because they were supported by a high level of education, scientific infrastructure and collective institutions that allowed them to acquire the necessary knowledge and experimentation.

But beyond these visible and detectable processes, on which the progress of humanity is based, there are other more fundamental, complex, long-term and invisible processes, of which Friedrich Engels gives us an idea:

"The concept of number is an "invention" of a wise man, only if we see it in isolation from society and its evolution. But for the wise man to be able to measure, he needed an ability to abstract from all other qualities of things, and to retain only their quantitative element.
This ability was acquired by humanity over a long series of millennia of action and reaction with nature, of experience. If we look at it this way, then the concept of number projects itself as an assimilation and pumping of the logic of nature, by the action of man. "

So when innovators claim the accolades, honours and rewards of society, we should also think that they should be much more grateful to society for giving them the opportunity to express their creativity and affirm their personalities by building on the toil and knowledge accumulated by humanity. Otherwise let them innovate outside of society. . .

The narrative of the elites and those who "humanity should be grateful to" is confined within the walls of a factory or a company. But humanity, in all its extent and historicity, even at its extreme limits, has always invented and created/produced and continues to invent and create/produce. Not, of course, in the sense of "scientists" "economists", but in the broad sense of contribution to the evolution of humanity. The concept of production/creation embraces every human activity and every resource of humanity, even its most extreme limits. For what is the evolution of the "bastard of the nun" who was born in a cave and became the leader of the 1821 revolutionary George Karaiskakis?

Or Stephen Hawking, the totally paralyzed top scientist? You can think of countless other such extreme examples. Do these types of creators and these types of activities have less impact on productivity? Do they contribute less to "GDP"? Let them claim it if they want. . .

Looking at things from such a perspective, we can understand that language (which is the result of cooperation, communication, work and struggles of any society and never the result of the inspiration of some innovators or individuals) and the literate and educated people who carry it (the whole of society), are the fundamental tool (or factory), on which every inventor/innovator steps and creates his inspiration, or the private individual his production and his property.

These are not the "framework" for the elites to rob and oppress people, but are the heritage, property and rights of humanity, which no generation can cede to private individuals. On these is based everything that is created or "produced" in society. On this is founded the right of society to everything that constitutes the wealth of humanity.

After all, if anything has become obvious today (remember how "scientifically" they cut our wages), it is that economic practice is not a science like physics or chemistry, but is saturated to the core with politics. This is beautifully described and explained by George Karabelias ("The new era of global capitalism"):
"In order to understand the current stock market phenomenon and the
entering the era of the "virtual economy", we should introduce the concept of the "social factory" and indeed on a planetary scale.

Big business doesn't just extract goodwill from the
specific workers, but from the whole planet, through a mythical transfer of resources enabled by the stock market and the incessant movement of capital.
This extraction of goodwill is not carried out through direct
labour relationship, but through the subordination of the entire planet
to the hegemony of capital, and of Western capital at that.

We are faced with a new system of extraction of surplus value at the national and transnational level, a system of direct transformation of society into an object of exploitation, where money flows, the monopoly of knowledge-information and military power are transformed into a direct factor in the exploitation of capital. The valorisation of capital is almost immediately transformed into a political element. "

If people stop accepting the present situation as logic and realize their rights, the system will have collapsed. Because 9/10 of the elites' rule is based on propaganda and corruption and only 1/10 on power and weapons. If the propaganda collapses, the effectiveness of violence is annihilated.

The great battle must therefore be fought for these hidden concepts and ideas that nobody is discussing today. People need to become aware of their rights.
They will probably accuse us of being "populists". Well, yes! We are populists. IN NOSTI! Because we care about all peoples, all over the planet. That is, we are HUMANISTS! Let them blame us. . .

15 October 2018
George Papanikolaou