For 60 years, we were taught that between 1939 and 1945, the Nazis killed four milion Jews and two million others in the concentration camps. The Holocaust.
In 2009, in his mini-series of the war in Europe, in the penultimate episode, Tom Hanks reported that it was six million Jews and four million others killed in the Nazi concentration camps. This figure was quoted by the Israeli PM in a speach early in 2010, and became the new history (thanks to the Internet and the demise of accurate print reporting).
In the series "The Lost Films," shown here (Australia) in opposition to Hank's "The Pacific", the last episode said the the Nazis killed 14 million people between 1939 and 1945, more than half of them Jews. These figures were quoted while scenes from the concentration camps (more than 1500 claimed) were shown. How long before this figure becomes the new Holocaust figure?
The Nazis killed many civilians outside of the concentration camps: in the occupied countries when caught or during the invasions; in East Europe (courtesy of Nazi sympathisers using the occupation as a chance to settle old scores); the bombing of Britain; and in Russia. This figure could also include the number of soldiers killed on both sides.
But the authors did not bother to say just what they included in these figures. Ignorance of the facts, or an attempt to push an agenda?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Manufactured Ignorance Part 1
Recent advertisements in the press are now touting "manufactured diamonds" instead of "artificial" ones. Seems the old term has too many negative connotations. The sale of mined diaminds is controlled by a world diamond federation controlled by De Beers. Too many diamionds available means prices drop.
The idea of engraving a serial number was introduced to stop the flow of so-called "blood diamonds" and the sale of arms to such countries as Angola. Very commendable. Nothing was said, though, about the working conditions of the African labourers who mine the bulk of "legitimate" diamonds.
A mantra of the diamond trade is the search for the perfect flawless diamond. It is the imperfections in diamonds that make them characteristic, and flawless diamonds are considered most valuable.
Industrial diamonds have been manufactrured for many years, but have been too small for any use except high-grade abrasives. It is no conincidence that the manufacture of larger stones (1/2 carat and larger) occurred at the same time as De Beers demanded that legal diamonds be etched with a serial number. Any diamonds without this number would then be considered to be illegal blood diamonds, or artifical ones.
It is no surprise that manufactured diamonds are indistinct from mined diamonds, except that they are perfect (and lack the diamond merchants' serial number, of course).
How long before a small miner begins salting its leases with manufactured diamonds made to look like mined diamonds?
This notion came back to mind after the Australian miners started their campaign against the super profits resources tax. Surprisingly, the biggest complainer is Exstrata, based in Europe. The tax does not negatively affect a miner's profitability. In fact it increase the manouvering room a miner has in market negotiations. But what the tax does, and no one seems to mention this, is guarantee the entry of small miners into the resources business. Now, this added competition is definitely not in the interests of the established miners, but they can't say that the tax will actually increase competition and reduce prices of manufactured goods (and coal-based power) to consumers.
Australia is the first country to introduce a financial incentive of this nature for competitive resource exploitation. This has international ramifications, and it must be stopped here, hence Exstrata's involvement.
No way, Jose! Let the lies begin, and the public servants manipulate those lies to serve their own ignorant agendas.
***** *****
The idea of engraving a serial number was introduced to stop the flow of so-called "blood diamonds" and the sale of arms to such countries as Angola. Very commendable. Nothing was said, though, about the working conditions of the African labourers who mine the bulk of "legitimate" diamonds.
A mantra of the diamond trade is the search for the perfect flawless diamond. It is the imperfections in diamonds that make them characteristic, and flawless diamonds are considered most valuable.
Industrial diamonds have been manufactrured for many years, but have been too small for any use except high-grade abrasives. It is no conincidence that the manufacture of larger stones (1/2 carat and larger) occurred at the same time as De Beers demanded that legal diamonds be etched with a serial number. Any diamonds without this number would then be considered to be illegal blood diamonds, or artifical ones.
It is no surprise that manufactured diamonds are indistinct from mined diamonds, except that they are perfect (and lack the diamond merchants' serial number, of course).
How long before a small miner begins salting its leases with manufactured diamonds made to look like mined diamonds?
This notion came back to mind after the Australian miners started their campaign against the super profits resources tax. Surprisingly, the biggest complainer is Exstrata, based in Europe. The tax does not negatively affect a miner's profitability. In fact it increase the manouvering room a miner has in market negotiations. But what the tax does, and no one seems to mention this, is guarantee the entry of small miners into the resources business. Now, this added competition is definitely not in the interests of the established miners, but they can't say that the tax will actually increase competition and reduce prices of manufactured goods (and coal-based power) to consumers.
Australia is the first country to introduce a financial incentive of this nature for competitive resource exploitation. This has international ramifications, and it must be stopped here, hence Exstrata's involvement.
No way, Jose! Let the lies begin, and the public servants manipulate those lies to serve their own ignorant agendas.
***** *****
Monday, March 1, 2010
Newspeak
Doesn't time fly when you are having fun?
In November 2009, I argued with the Assistant Treasurer that if the government was going to fund an economic stimulus, then it should not be giving money to banks. Perhaps it should give pensioners a taste of the increased pension rates instead.
I was surprised when a few weeks later, the government announced the $1200 grant to all pensioners and carers.
It seems I was the only voice calling for an economic stimulus. I could find no other comment calling for one. But I did find calls for the governments of the world to bail out the financial institutions, if they were going to give any stimulus at all.
In Australia, Treasury was calling for increased money for the banks, while Finance was saying that the consumers should be helped first. Of course, the political opposition was also calling for any help to be given direct to the financial institutions.
A few months later, and everyone worldwide was praising the Australian government for its foresight and its success, and its stimulus was being repeated (except in the US, where the financial giants such as IAG were being helped, and the fat cats were getting fatter).
Last night I was watching a repeat of a comedy show from late 2009, which showed that a whole raft of people has supported the Australian government's financial stimulus package. Funny, none of these had supported the government's package a year earlier.
In November 2009, I argued with the Assistant Treasurer that if the government was going to fund an economic stimulus, then it should not be giving money to banks. Perhaps it should give pensioners a taste of the increased pension rates instead.
I was surprised when a few weeks later, the government announced the $1200 grant to all pensioners and carers.
It seems I was the only voice calling for an economic stimulus. I could find no other comment calling for one. But I did find calls for the governments of the world to bail out the financial institutions, if they were going to give any stimulus at all.
In Australia, Treasury was calling for increased money for the banks, while Finance was saying that the consumers should be helped first. Of course, the political opposition was also calling for any help to be given direct to the financial institutions.
A few months later, and everyone worldwide was praising the Australian government for its foresight and its success, and its stimulus was being repeated (except in the US, where the financial giants such as IAG were being helped, and the fat cats were getting fatter).
Last night I was watching a repeat of a comedy show from late 2009, which showed that a whole raft of people has supported the Australian government's financial stimulus package. Funny, none of these had supported the government's package a year earlier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)