HoltesThoughts

Monday, April 20, 2015

The vicious and War

War attracts the virtuous.

it also attacks the vicious.

Eagles and Vultures fighting over carrion,

and gnawing the bones of fallen heros.

Indeed the corrupt are jealous of the virtuous.

The vicious find a way to fell them,

and tie them to a tree,

to eat their livers and laugh at their plight.

But which would you rather be?

virtuous or vicious?

Is it really worth it to be mean?

How is it noble to be so classless?

Is the brief joy of strutting on top of a pyramid

worth being sacrificed at the end of the season?

Our best warriors know how to wage peace.

They prefer keeping the killing to the minimum,

and avoid corrupt grease.

Christopher Holte

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Washington's Advice still applies

Before they went insane after 9/11, some conservatives I knew used to quote Washington's Farewell Speech to me. It was a good speech. Of course they saw it as recommending no UN, complete isolationism, and no "entangling alliances." It seemed good advice to me, and the denouement of recent events recommends his word anymore. Which I suppose is why I haven't heard a conservative quoting it to me in a long time.

Good Faith and Justice

Washington's advice seems especially cogent now, in the face of the subversion, sedition and sabotage we are seeing in the Senate against efforts by the Obama administration to work with the Security Council nations to negotiate a Nuclear Arms agreement with the Iranians. Washington would have been fine with such treaties, as long as we weren't getting in bed with any particular country! He admonished that we should:

(From: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

When T.R. Roosevelt negotiated the Russo-Japanese peace treaty, Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the UN, or Truman went ahead and recognized Israel, they were guided by the principle that US Foreign Policy should be magnanimous, just and that benevolence is, in the long run, more profitable than greed. I believe that Obama's negotiations with Iran are guided by a similar approach. Something that doesn't sit well with the privateers and free booters who think they own our foreign policy and see any other approach as idiocy and usurpation. Yet Washington's guidance was wise and prescient:

Paragraph Continued:

"Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?" [Washington's Farewell Address]

The root of viciousness is "vice" and our foreign policy, while occasionally following Washington's admonitions has been more often vicious, greedy, self serving and even violent. For every Portsmouth Treaty (TR's negotiation), there was a land grab or selfish intervention like that of the Panama Canal. And if we've removed tyrants, we've also installed them. And our rationale has been often, petty self interest of a minority of our officials, or of our entangled allies:

"the main beef with the Iranian Prime Minister was that, in May of 1951, he had nationalized the oil fields controlled by the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, the precursor to BP. From the perspective of Washington, though, as the newly released documents confirm, Mossadegh’s biggest sin was his flirtation with the Soviet Union, which, like Britain, had colonial ties to Iran." [http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-lessons-of-classified-information-from-mossadegh-to-snowden]

And that action back in 1953 is still bearing bitter fruit. If our GOP Cons are upset that Iran might get Bombs, the Iranians still have a grudge about that coup.

Permanent Friendships or Permanent Antipathies

Washington next gave this piece of advise:

"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."

Just and Amicable, or Exxon and Mobile

Now note, it's not enough that we should avoid too much friendship, or too much enmity, we need to cultivate "just and amicable feelings". This is what the purpose of the "League of Nations" was intended to be, and of the United Nations. That it hasn't always worked that way is because we have not cultivated justice but have violated these principles. And that excessive zeal for "special relationships" has plagued our country.

Paragraph continued....

"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

Shortly after Washington left office we started to have a "Quasi-war" with France. It was never declared, but the Federalist Faction wanted war with France and Spain while the Republican faction wanted peace. We had been too attached to the French, and already the Brits were working their diplomacy on us to reverse that attachment by recruiting ex-tories and Anglophiles. Later we would be forced to war with the Brits. Once there is a war among our neighbors, it is difficult to stay out of them. The Brits too have a motto "no permanent friends, no permanent allies", which they violate with impunity too.

Trying to play both sides.

Though it may seem to be neutral to "play both sides". I don't think Washington was talking about that kind of "neutrality." One reason for both the Quasi-War and the War of 1812 is that our merchants were smuggling arms and materiel to both sides of their conflict with each other. When we sent more goods to the Brits and the French thought they had the power to stop us, the French attacked. Later when the French lost control over the seas and we continued to sell goods to them, the Brits started attacking our ships. Washington's advice wasn't always easy to follow.

"Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests."

We had an embargo on Cuba for more than 50 years, which was useless in stopping Human Rights Violations, and mainly hurt the families of Cuban refugees who's anger drove the antipathy. And similar ill will drives the efforts of Senators to sabotage Obama's negotiations with Iran. Instead of listening to Washington.

He continues:

Power of Outside influence from "Pernicious" Forces

"The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim." [FA]

Not to mention the opportunism of privateers, smugglers and arms salesmen. It turns out that hostilities towards nations, peoples (or internal minorities) is profitable. Sometimes the folks pushing war have "pernicious motives" as is the case of folks like Senator Cotton who were paid by Israeli Lobbyists to try to sabotage our peace treaty with Iran. I've found evidence that the folks pushing to scuttle talks want us to be at odds because it marks up the value of their smuggling. Which is exactly what the next passage in George Washington's Speech was referring to:

"Most Favored Nation"

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."

Which is exactly what has been happening with our "special relations" with France and Britain, where we were duped into supporting French interests in Vietnam or British influences in Iran, on the false fear of "communism." Our special relationships with European Countries also led to us supporting European banks in oppressing Central and South America, and latter letting the former Colonial powers try to "take back" properties they'd invaded and conquered as colonial subjects once before. Much of our fear of Communism was exaggerated fear of revolutions that were as much a reaction to colonialism and tyranny as a result of the spread of Bolshevik ideas. And this also has led to us supporting bad trade treaties like the Trans Pacific Partnership which try to overrule even our own laws:

"It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld."

A lot of our conflicts have been the result of other countries perceiving that we are in league with their enemies. Not just between countries, but even within them. When our country serves the interests of the wealthy, or of the giant multinational countries, we are creating blowback.

"And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation." [FA]

Entangling Alliances

One of our biggest problems for us started was when we let the British and French convince us to take their side in World War I, and also after World War II when we joined our intelligence services. This has led to a CIA with purported or actual factions, ever since. And it has led to some countries having legal access to our intelligence information, which gives them a massive advantage in manipulating us. The British, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand governments, for example, signed an intelligence sharing agreement with us called the 5 Eyes, which gets advertized as the agreement that makes it unnecessary for us to spy on each other. But what it has actually done was to set it up so we could form a condominium so our governments could mutually spy on our citizens without taking credit for it. This excessive friendship harms both the USA and the other four countries. Similarly our "special relationships" with Israel, Japan, South Korea and other countries, have often caused us more trouble than they've been worth. It's not that we shouldn't be friendly towards these countries but that Washington's words on too much "friendship were never more cogent:

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter." [FA]

Unity

It is fortunate that we listened to Washington during our early years -- and that we preserved our Union. The European powers at various times had designs on Texas (Prussia) California (Britain) NW (Britain/Russia) and our own South only could have won the Civil war by becoming a satellite of either France or Britain.

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." [FA]

Antipathy

We should be as careful in dealing with the Brits and French as we are with the Germans or the Ukrainians, and with them as we are with the Russians. And we should be careful with all of them. Not over-enthusiastic. Nor doing the "1984" equivalent of hating on the "enemy of the week." It's as much to protect us against home-based demagogues as to protect against the Foreign intrigues of a Rupert Murdoch or some other foreigner.

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." [FA]

Taking this seriously, we should not be creating special Admiralty style Courts to give private separate advantage to external investments as we have been doing with our TPP negotiations and the ISDS provisions. Washington was also counselling Union. Modern seditious, subversive and centrifugal folks would disrupt our Union, but it's been our unity that has allowed us to survive:

A vision of the USA as a Powerful Neutral Force for Good

"Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel." [FA]

Had we split up, our country would resemble El Salvador, Honduras, or at best Brazil; with an even more bloody history of repression and poverty. We'd still have rich people, but our industry or middle class would never have been allowed to develop. And part of the reason we've avoided such breakups is that we haven't played favorite. Even when factions wanted us too.

"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" [FA]

UN and Entangling Alliances

The key is to understand what Washington was talking about when he said the following:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them." [FA]

In other words we need to be friendly to all, but not subject to any. I think the UN, in it's best sense might be an exception, because it isn't any "portion" and at it's best is a forum for communications, cultivating "good faith and justice, peace and harmony" towards all nations than the kind of "entanglement" he's warning about. Even so I think those who've read Washington would see he was warning even about relying too much on the UN.

"Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." [FA]

We have violated this principle since the beginning of the 20th century. Mostly by going from a defensive posture to an offensive one.

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." [FA]

Ironically our treaties with countries like China or South Korea grant them "most favored nation" status. Pretty much sticking a finger in Washington's statue's eye. And treaties like TPP pretty much ignore him.

Sources and Further Reading: Source: Wasington's Fairwell Address [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp]; TR & Russo-Japanese War: [https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/portsmouth-treaty]; FDR & UNhttp://globalsolutions.org/blog/2010/04/FDR-and-United-Nations-Enduring-Legacy#.VSsCWPnF9Ag
Mossadegh:: Britannica on Mossadegh: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/393304/Mohammad-Mosaddeq; Mosaddeq's overthrow: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-lessons-of-classified-information-from-mossadegh-to-snowden; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/an-exclusive-club-the-five-countries-that-dont-spy-on-each-other/

Rest In Peace (RIP) Michael C. Ruppert April 13 2014

I followed the Career of Michael C. Rupert, partly due to some overlap in acquaintances and encounters. Unlike him, I was too chicken to follow up on my observations. I'm still alive. He's been suicided. I don't know if that is an accomplishment. A "coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave die but once." I'm sure he's off in the land of odd characters in a heaven of his own now, and finally at peace. Whether one is a coward or a hero, is often a matter of which narratives one believes. One can be paranoid about it, or one can be naive. But in either case there are real bad guys, real good guys, and most folks are in between. So who knows. Maybe he was a nut case? But I suspect he was right more often than he was wrong. I only think that way because of things that happened to me that destroyed my sense of self satisfaction. Too many people I admire have been "suicided" for me to believe all of them are suicides (though many of them were). This world is a hard one and some folks just get tired of dealing with it. At the same time the real heros have a way of "suiciding" in media res. Whether Michael is the former or the later I'll leave to the audience. I suspect he was just tired.

I started to write this back in April when I first read about his death. Suicide happens. People do give up sometimes. But I had a little trouble believing this guy would take his life and found it a lot easier to think someone killed him. But when I looked into the stor, since there was no evidence that implicated anyone. His situation was so depressing I abandoned the project. Leaving a draft on my blog. The guy was one of my investigative reporter heros, despite or because he was so human. So I figured it would be appropriate a year later to finish this post.

From the Wilderness"

He ran a blog called "From the Wilderness" which chronicalled his investigations, managed his writings and presented his life. I only paid attention to him occasionally. I confess I got his name mixed up with that of other whistleblowers and reporters I've paid attention to, sometimes. It also continues his investigations to a degree. His website reported:

"This is the man who cost CIA Director Deutch his guaranteed appointment as Secretary of Defense after confronting him at Locke High School with hard facts about CIA dealing drugs." - Dick Gregory

" ...in the course of investigations in the mid 70's he came across information that the CIA was trading drugs in order to fund covert operations in the Middle East...Perot called him back to offer encouragement...Ruppert says that his main objective is to see that the country gets a leader worthy of its people. Even for Ross Perot those will be tough shoes to fill." - PEOPLE MAGAZINE 6/22/92

He went on to discover other abuses, but his main concern was how mankind is destroying our planet:

"he’d become convinced that the places we live, the cars we drive, the products we buy, the food we consume — the habits that shape industrial human civilization — were leading to our demise. Smith was intrigued. The resulting interviews in late March and early April 2009 became Collapse, a dark, ominous documentary. The film compiled some of the most intriguing facts Ruppert had amassed during his career, along with some of his most dire predictions. Among them: the imminent end of human industrial civilization. Ruppert made "Michael Moore sound like Mr. Rogers," said one reviewer." [The Unbelievable Life and Death of Michael C Rupert]

The Cassandra Curse

Most of his friends and relatives believe he committed suicide. His last days seem like an episode of "Supernatural. Still he was a fascinating person. He suffered the Cassandra curse. He was a sensitive soul who could sense the pain and suffering, potential and doom all around him. He could warn about what is happening. Tell truth to power and tell folks what to do to avoid a terrible fate. But in the end he realized he had done all he could and he could do no more.

Cassandra was a prophetess, cursed with the ability to see the future, but the complete inability to forestall it. She was the one who warned the Trojans not to take in the Trojan Horse. Sometimes our prophets are murdered. Sometimes they suicide. Sometimes they live to a ripe old age. But it seems nobody ever listens to them.

Others are carrying on his investigative work. A Journalist named Carolyn Baker is continuing his blog and some of his efforts. I guess that is the best anyone can expect, that when the torch is dropped, someone will pick it up and keep running.

Further Reading: War is a Racket [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html]
Collapse Net's report:: http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/12454-collapsenets-founder-michael-c-ruppert-has-committed-suicide; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydNqFyvisCo
In memorium:: In Memorium

Thursday, April 9, 2015

International Sea Dogs, Smuggling and Playing Both sides

This article follows from my post arms-lobbyists and war Mongering.

I suspect the seditious campaign to undermine, sabotage, subvert and prevent an arms agreement with Iran is worse than mere cynicism and is essentially pure treason. Not to stop Iran from getting a bomb, but to bid up the prices for the centrifuges, equipment, tools and ingredients that they buy from their patrons in the Arms Industry. I looked at who was lobbying for War, and the folks paying them to lobby were all Arms manufacturers.

Waging War for Profit Against Iran -- While Smuggling to them

Our experience with Iran since 1980 has been that sanctions not only haven't been effective but have been counter-productive. I used to think they weren't effective because they mostly hurt ordinary people and the target country and not the elites. But then I started revisiting the stories around the "October Surprise" of 1980 -- when the Iranians waited until Ronald Reagan took office and the rumor later circulated that Reagan's foreign policy team had sabotaged the negotiations.

The Messiah Walks among us; He ministers in Aids clinics; He attends Seders in Shul; He prays on a rug in the mosque; And meditates in Ashrams; He leaves invisible footprints; we can follow if we choose to see.; The Messiah walks among us; Barefoot in the back of the bus; He's been spotted sitting next to your grandmother; and talking to your autistic brother.; The Messiah has been seen wandering the streets of calcutta; And among the slumdogs in Bombay; He wanders barefoot in Nairobi; and shelter's women from Al Shabaab; He saves children from Christian Militias; and turns diamonds back into coal; His miracles are simple things; like restoring an orphan child's sight.; He is the friend to the humble; But is offended by those who call his name in vain.; And do deeds that are offensive in his sight; The Messiah wanders the ruins of Gaza; Performing miracles to save children from bombs.; He has saved Bosnian Muslims from Serbs; And Serbians from Croatians.; The Messiah rescues Jews from murder; And hears the pleas of all the children.; But he is offended by the prayers of the arrogant; Who dare to preach war in his name.; When it is their turn to pray, he will ignore their pleas.; The Messiah walks the world; Carrying refugees on his back.; He ferries them across the Rio Grand; And washes them in the Jordan.; He walks across the seas; preaching a brotherhood of man.; Borders are meaningless to him.; The Messiah knows the game; And his greatest source of shame; are the scoundrels who make the claim; they are teaching in his name.; He knows they know who they are; And he prays they will seek redemption; Before they fall into the pit of their own lies; The Messiah is there in your church; Though more likely in the back than in the front.; He is teaching in all the schools; Though those who hear him rarely preach.
He speaks to anyone who:: listens with his inner ear; casts out demons of hate,; and lets go of blinding fear; He ignores those who pretend to see him.; And strikes the hypocrites blind who ignore his lessons.; The Messiah is here, he walks among us.; And those who ignore him, will pay for their crimes.; But those who deliberately distort his teachings earn a place in hell.; Christopher H. Holte

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

The Principle of the Commons: Was the Magna Carta the beginning of liberty or it's end?

Magna Carta as "Where Modern European Civilization went wrong?"

My friend shared a post in Facebook on the Magna Carta in which Fred Harrison maintains that "If we want to discover where modern European Civilization went wrong, one of the places to start to look for the clues is this field" in Runnymede. And surprisingly he maintains that:

"The liberties of the individual began to be eroded with Magna Carta. Far from celebrating it as a sacred document that protected people’s natural rights, the 1215 deal in Runnymede between king and aristocracy took the first fatal step in a centuries-long process of de-socialising the nation’s rental revenue, necessitating the imposition of taxes that damage the health and welfare of the nation." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwU2CvR3mm8]

Now I agree with Fred Harrison in the overall theme of his argument that it was the conversion of feudal rights and obligations to absolute property rights that undermined the wealth and comfort of the common people of England. But I disagree that it started with the Magna Carta. I think he's pointing to the wrong culprit, and that on the contrary the Magna Carta was even more important to the Future of human rights than is commonly acknowledged and the reason is that the King was also forced to uphold the rights of commoners, something that other Kings and nobility in Europe successfully denied. Had the aristocracy lost their battles with the King, then the King would have had the level of power and wealth he needed to enforce absolutist monarchy similar to what happened in France where there was no Magna Carta. Had the King lost completely to the Aristocracy the tyranny would have been local as happened in Poland.

When the magna carta was granted the Normans had just finished almost 100 years of trying to stamp out Liberty for commoners (sometimes more successfully than others).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwU2CvR3mm8

In his Youtube exposition he claims that the:

"ugly truth" of the Magna Carta is "terrible to behold" and that the "Magna Carta was the beginning of the end of the liberties of people born on the British Isles!" [Youtube]

When I heard that my jaw almost fell to the floor. On the contrary, in the context of it's times, it was huge progress for all involved. Without the Magna Carta, the Kings of England would have had an easier time asserting an absolute monarchy. And when the transition to a modern country occurred 300 years later the common folks of England would have had more trouble maintaining their rights than they had anyway.

The balance between the nobility and the King was important. The King provided an appellate outlet for local tyranny from nobles. The King in turn needed at least some check on his powers and the Magna Carta was that. It also was a reassertion of pre Norman Conquest Germanic beliefs over the Christo-Fascist notions brought in from France and the Frankish Empire. "Divine Right of Kings" made royalty totally subservient to the Crown. Magna Carta asserted that at least some of the people had rights too.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below - [Magna Carta]

If anything the Magna Carta was an acknowledgment that at least some people had rights. As my friend Robert Burns notes right off the bat the Magna Carta:

"did not de-socialize anything. It was understood that the nobility, the peers, were rulers over the commoners. They did not engage in the same deception today where the capitalist/rentier ignoble rulers pretend to be mere ‘private’ commoners (de-socializing the rents)." [https://www.facebook.com/groups/372946956055502/1110765355606988/?comment_id=1110801398936717¬if_t=group_comment_reply]

Rights to the Commons

Yes, the nobility and the King cut a deal that mostly ignored the concerns of the Peasantry. But not of all the peasantry. The thin middle class of English commoners was represented. Yeomen, who usually owed more than a few acres and farmed their own land in return for being England's famed and feared "longbowmen" were present at the table and their voice is heard indirectly along with other commoners. I like to think that the echoes of "Robin Hood are present in the treaty in the Magna Carta, in this passage:

"(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly." - [http://www.bl.uk/.../magna-carta-english-translation]

Yes the Magna Carta was imposed on King John and guaranteed the rights of nobles. But at least some of the better educated and armed lower classes were there too, and they forced their issue on King John as well. That includes the small farmers known as Yeomen who also were the backbone of the British Army with their archers. The magna Carta is where most Robin Hood stories are set for a reason.

Common Rights

In feudal times feudal obligations were law. They were governed by common law and the only real threat to common law was the various crowns, all of whom sought to establish absolute arbitrary rule. Where the nobility won too much power the crown became so weak it couldn't even defend the country -- as happened to Poland. But in England the feudal rights were affirmed without totally Défenestreing the crown. As Robert Burns notes:

"So Magna Carta instead decentralized the feudal State power. In contrast, the anointing of ignobles centralizes and de-socializes ruling power (Citigroup, for example, rules the entire World and calls its rule merely its own ‘private interest’ and none of our business)." [https://www.facebook.com/groups/372946956055502/1110765355606988/?comment_id=1110801398936717¬if_t=group_comment_reply]

But what documents like the Magna Carta did were to distribute powers and obligations and attempt to establish basic principles of rule of law. The principles may even have been conscious of the principles behind what they were doing, because much of what became common law is based on traditional principles. And you see these affirmed in passage after passage in the Charter. For example:

"(57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgment of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions." -[Magna Carta]

Rule of Law:

The Magna Carta imposed principles of rule of law for commoners:

"(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood." [Magna Carta]

The principle of "trial by one's peers, was originally a principle of nobility, but it's still a principle of fairness:

"(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence." [Magna Carta]

And also for the Church:

"(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice." [Magna Carta]

So was the Magna Carta the "End of Liberty" or a victory in a long war?

So On the contrary the Magna Carta was not the "end of freedom" or "liberty" but a successful skirmish in a long war between conflicting interests. I agree with the theme expressed in the last 5 minutes, but his facts and justifications are poorly argued. The Magna Carta actually reflects the complexity of the struggles for common rights of commoners. At the table at Runnymede commoners weren't even directly represented but as shown in the above passages they were there.

Later in his exposition he claims that the expression "estate" or "land" was eliminated from the American founding documents because they wanted to deny the people a right to land property. But the problem with that argument is that the assertion of an absolute (or alloidal) right to land would have been the basis of the great landlords asserting the right to collect massive rents and evict people who couldn't pay them, not that people have an "equal right" to land. That is precisely the mistake that commoners made during the Enlightenment. It wasn't the Magna Carta that converted feudal rulers rights to simple property, it was the very sleight of hand in parliament of ending 'nobility' without redistributing the property that the nobles controlled that converted those rights to simple property and paved the way for fencing and highland clearances. On the Contrary the Magna Carta saw the Crown forced to concede people's right to access rivers or use the "Kings Forests." An equal right to use of land is asserted in the the passage the "Pursuit of happiness." Fred Harrison gets it exactly backwards.

The Magna Carta as a Battle in a Long war

The fact is that the magna carta was one battle of a long struggle between socially dominant nobles (and clergy), commoners and the Crown in which the sides constantly shifted. Commoners fought the crown and nobles by asserting Feudal obligations on the part of both, and by asserting "common rights". They usually had to fight and be crushed to get even minor concessions. And much of what is in "natural rights" discourse was under-ground and expressed in legend, lore (stories like Robin Hood), limericks ("When Adam spat and Eve Span, who was then the common man" dates back to the Normans). And local rebellion, even when it resulted in mass beheadings was often the only path to assert justice. A little more than 100 years later, Peasants would give their lives fighting the crowns on similar arguments to what Locke would argue 2 centuries after that. Rights are Bottom up. Social Domination is top down. It has to be resisted bottom up.

As I noted in my blog on the Peasant Revolt of 1381, at the beginning of 2014:

"When Adam delved and Eve span,[a] Who was then the gentleman?[3] From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty" [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/01/rights-come-from-below-john-lockes.html] Src: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest)]

Rights come from below. As I noted:

"the Peasants of Wycliff and Watt read the bible and were quietly the equals of anyone. They shared jokes about the wealthy and expressed them in short poems, which were basically the tweets of the day."

And many of the men and women of the time of King John were educated too. It's that quiet assertion of human dignity that continues to this day and that will prevail in the face of bullying, social dominance and the arrogance of the rich and powerful.

Further Reading:: https://www.facebook.com/groups/372946956055502/1110765355606988/?comment_id=1110801398936717¬if_t=group_comment_reply; http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1986-7/milone.htm; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwU2CvR3mm8; [http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation]; Peasant Revolt: http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1986-7/milone.htm; http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/01/rights-come-from-below-john-lockes.html; John Ball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest)

Plutocrats versus Democrats Bill Moyer's Article

Plutocracy is not new in the United States. Our Modern Cons (not conservatives they only conserve money), do inherit a legacy of anti-Democratic feeling and action that dates back to both the "Tories" who supported the British during the American Revolution and the "Whigs" who were often family members of the Tories, and made money off of the revolution. Self Aggrandizement is human nature, and I've talked about the Pirates of the American Revolution, but there were pirates and their Money Men Admirals in every subsequent war.

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/0912nyj.jpg

As General Smedley Butler documented in his book "War is a Racket":

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits -- ah! that is another matter -- twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent -- the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it." [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html]

And war-profiting goes with industrialism. It's documented that much of our industry has been the product of the need to provide war-materials. The rest has been the product of the more prosaic and legitimate need to provide consumer goods, but the profits have been in the war and the profits from war were used to build plutocratic power and wealth. And these people came to define the 19th century:

"The first class of multimillionaires had made their fortunes in the Civil War, and during subsequent decades they began to consolidate holdings in a number of industries with national and international reach. Among the most famous were Carnegie Steel and John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company." [http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/trusts.html]

The first class of multimillionaires were people like the Goulds, Harry Payne Whitney, the Vanderbilts and the Astors. Technically the Rockefellers and Carnagies were second generation Millionaires. Carnagie made his millions building bridges for millionaires out of Steel using the Bessemer process he got from hiring Bessemer to work for him. And Rockefeller made his millions by refining oil into standard volume and quality Kerosene and then getting a monopoly over the distribution. The millionaires of the 1860's turned into industrialists and by the turn of the 20th century were an aristocracy. And some wealth does trickle down from the top .01% to the top .1% to the top 1%, in a hierarchy of diminishing returns. Bessemer may have invented the Bessemer process, but it was Carnagie who made the millions. Plutocracy forms pyramids. Eventually some "fearless leader" stands on top the pyramid, but the energy is in the social dominance of the wealthy.

Plutocrats hate Democracy:

“Awful Democracy”

Bill Moyers takes an excerpt from the book and writes:

"Wall Street Brahmin Henry Lee Higginson, fearing “Awful Democracy” — that whole menagerie of radicalisms — urgently appealed to his fellows to take up the task of mastery, “more wisely and more humanely than the kings and nobles have done. Our chance is now — before the country is full and the struggle for bread becomes intense. I would have the gentlemen of the country lead the new men who are trying to become gentlemen.” [http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/06/plutocracy-first-time-around/]

This was naked aristocracy, and the attitude is coming out of the closet again. Because these aristocrats don't have a sense of social contract to others. Many of them are heirs to the privateering, piracy approach to wealth. If you can't earn it steal it. If it's illegal to trade it smuggle it. It's the Ferenghi ethos, nothing can standing the way of profits and "gold pressed latinum". These people were and are:

"sea-dog capitalists, dynasty builders, for whom accumulation was a singular, all-consuming obsession. They reckoned with outside authority if they had to, manipulated it if they could, but just as often went about their business as if it didn’t exist. Bred to hold politics in contempt, one Social Register memoirist recalled growing up during the “great barbeque.” He was taught to think of politics as something “remote, disreputable, and infamous, like slave-trading or brothel-keeping.”" [http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/06/plutocracy-first-time-around/]

Then as now the goal was social and economic dominance not benevolence. A disdain for "politics" is usually a preference for brute force.

"Brute Force"

They may have eschewed "politics" but they had no trouble with buying politicians, hiring private police, or enforcing their power. Then and now their corporate libertarianism and rejection of "government" led to violence not paradise.

"The frequent resort to violence that so marked the period was thus the default position of a ruling elite not really prepared to rule. And of course it only aggravated the dilemma of consent. Those suffering from the callousness of the dominant classes were only too ready to treat them as they depicted themselves — that is, as aristocrats but usurping ones lacking even a scintilla of legitimate authority." [http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/06/plutocracy-first-time-around/]

Frazer explains:

"The American upper classes did not constitute a seasoned aristocracy, but could only mimic one. They lacked the former’s sense of social obligation, of noblesse oblige, of what in the Old World emerged as a politically coherent “Tory socialism” that worked to quiet class antagonisms. But neither did they absorb the democratic ethos that today allows the country’s gilded elite to act as if they were just plain folks: a credible enough charade of plutocratic populism. Instead, faced with mass social disaffection, they turned to the “tramp terror” and other innovations in machine-gun technology, to private corporate armies and government militias, to suffrage restrictions, judicial injunctions, and lynchings. Why behave otherwise in dealing with working-class “scum” a community of “mongrel firebugs”?" [http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/06/plutocracy-first-time-around/]

In the 19th century the wealthy could rely on a corrupt and aristocratic Courts. What the Right Wing called "judicial activism" in the 20th century was merely the result of years of efforts to clean up these very actively oppressive courts of the 19th century. Using absolute notions of property rights to justify repressing workers was standard practice until the New Deal. These "sea-dog capitalists" haven't changed. The only difference is that, Sadly their descendents have learned to play politics. They still see the rest of us as "scum" and "mongrels". Just ask John McCain about Code Pink or Romney about the "47 Percent".

International Sea Dogs

And that is not just true of the United States. It is true around the world. War attracts sociopathic and "Sea Dog" businessmen like flies. In the Iran Iraq war:

"According to "Crimes of the President" Markups of weapons during the period when it was enforced were more than "ten times more than ordinary sales prices." "During the time of the embargo the numbers of countries selling weapons to Iran boomed from 40 countries to 53 countries." An embargo raises the profits for illegal arms sales." [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/04/arms-lobbyists-and-war-mongering.html]

War mongering and war-profiteering aren't new. Many of our wanna-be plutocrats got their fortunes from it. And these people no longer just dominate the USA, they dominate the world.

Further Reading:: War is a Racket:; Plutocracy First time around: http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/06/plutocracy-first-time-around/; From the book The Age of Acquiescence by Steve Fraser. Copyright (c) 2015 by Steve Fraser: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0316185434; Cartoon and some background from: [http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/trusts.html]