Jammerjoh

Website voor mensen die niet klagen

Rewarding the perverted

Perversion refers to something generally considered bad, but producing a 'Big Plus' for someone engaged in it, irrespective of the role of this individual. 'War Profiteering' is generally considered immoral, yet it is widespread and 'Booming Business' in our part of the world. Huge 'margins' on products which are 'in demand', both the material variety and 'propaganda'. Plundering bank-accounts and other forms of theft, with or without the verdict of a 'Kangaroo-Court' to make it sound legit. 

 

During the Second World War several Dutchmen struck the jackpot by selling their 'services' to the Germans. They were not part of the war-machine itself, but they constructed fortifications, built and maintained roads, arranged for the rail-transportation of the Jews to their 'Final Destination', 'taking care' of their artwork, jewellery, houses, businesses and comfortable cars. My dad, a teenager, hiked up to the beach to see his dad leave on one of the last ships out of port, heartbroken, on his way to England, and a Japanese prison camp later on in the war. My dad saw one wealthy Jewish family, about to board a small chartered fishing boat with the same destination, hand over the keys to their mighty expensive car to a bystander they didn't know, but who apparently looked sympathetic. Leaving the new owner bewildered and short of words as he waved his unknown benefactor goodbye, wishing him safe passage. 

 

Clearly, if you know war *will* come, because you are a 'confidant' of those planning for it, you have unique possibilities to position yourself in such a way that you are bound to get filthy rich. If your side wins. Although British banks found a way to 'invest' in both sides during the American 'Civil War', and emerge with a healthy profit. American 'Lend-Lease' constructions emerged during the First World War, it continued during the Second World War, and Ukraine has signed off on such deals as well, which truly is crazy if you accept my reading of what caused this war. Shoving Ukraine under the bus, and making them pay for the honour? What kind of perversion is that?

 

So, in 2007 Putin told his 'friends' in the NATO countries that further expansion of NATO would lead to war. What do you do? A pervert starts planning for war, while a sane person engages in negotiations to see how to avoid war, and save the brittle peace. NATO immediately invited Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance, signalling that they wanted war, not peace. Which they underscored by regime changing Ukraine in 2014 to make it happen. Why?

 

Because Russia is filthy rich. Not the people, yet. Or not all of them, because some oligarchs *did* get exceptionally rich as 'vulture capitalism' was introduced in the country after the fall of the Soviet Union. The people introducing that perversion of the capitalist system as proposed by Adam Smith, were collectively labeled the 'Harvard Boys', though there were significant differences between them. Jeffrey Sachs, for instance, honestly thought that they were preparing Russia for some kind of 'Marshall Plan' assistance, which would have set Russia on a path to prosperity akin to many European countries, and Japan, but that never happened. Vultures descended on the country and ripped it apart for the benefit of the 'Happy Few', provided with 'seeding money' from the large Western banks. And then 'Putin' happened. 

 

The oligarchs either 'came to see it' his way, which was based on reinvigorated nationalism, away from this Western idea of a Unipolar world since Putin clearly was not welcome in the 'Club', trying to build a prosperous and proud Russia, or they fled to the West, taking with them what they could suck out of the country, planning for war to remove Putin from abroad. The spoils of a war with Russia, lost by the Russians, were potentially breathtaking, while the potential loss to themselves was considered 'zilch, nada, nothing'. What they needed to do, was 'interest' perverted leaders in doing their bidding, dragging their countries into war. Even *if* Russia would emerge from the onslaught all in one piece, the countries they had prodded into going to war would be the only ones posting a loss, material and immaterial, including dead citizens, but they would not have lost anything themselves. And if they invested in weapons factories and things like that, they would emerge with a healthy profit even in that case. And we, the people, with so much to lose, fell for it. Why?

 

Still a bit of a mystery to me. In part the explanation is in all those wars we were engaged in since the start of this century, far away, which apparently did not hurt us. We were 'conditioned' to accept war, deluded into believing we were the 'Good Guys', fighting 'Just Wars'. I read a comment on 'X' posted by a veteran, who was shocked to learn we were grooming Al Qaeda again. He lost friends fighting them in Afghanistan, nearly got killed more than once himself. At the time he responded to the clarion-call after '9/11' to defend the country. WTF?!?

 

There is no doubt in my mind that all those in the West preparing us for war with Russia thought it was going to be a 'Walk in the Park'. The Rand Corp plan to overextend and unbalance Russia was airtight. Some Ukrainians would meet their Maker, and Ukraine might come under Russian control for a few months, but who cared? 

 

On the opposite end was Russia. They didn't *want* to go to war, because it interfered with there ongoing plans to increase the wealth of the Nation, along the lines provided by Adam Smith, 'Classic Capitalism' and 'Free Trade' with other nations. Contrary to what had been the rule in the West though, Russia never 'privatised' their weapons industry, and kept factories 'dormant' instead of tearing them down. They also kept large stockpiles of ammo and weapon systems, instead of selling them off to some weapons dealer. The moment 'Istanbul' was shredded by Zelensky, acting on pressure from his good friend Boris 'Brexit' Johnson, the gloves came off. But Russia didn't need to build new factories from scratch, didn't have to deal with 'owners' looking for margins to keep their stockholders happy. While they also didn't need to draft Russian men into the 'service' of their country, since they could afford to pay them well, generating enough volunteers. 

 

Those soldiers stand to profit from this war, if they survive, but not the industry which is working for the government, for the people, and not for the shareholders. This is what Rutte calls a 'War Economy'. In our part of the world nationalising the production facilities goes against the grain of war-profiteering, and will not be debatable until it is too late anyway. Meanwhile, paying those in the military a decent income runs counter to the war-profiteering mind-set as well, and in Holland the Dutch carrier KLM was recently reprimanded for hiring air force pilots at the end of their contract en masse, offering far better prospects, and a fair chance of staying alive. If the Russian economy can be described as typical for a 'War Economy', I think that our economy in the West should be described as typical for a 'Perverse Economy', which is unlikely to emerge victorious, because it has its priorities backwards, and upside down. 

 

The Dutch owner of the 'Moscow Times', one of those lesser oligarchs who left Russia because he was not interested in creating a prosperous Russia, and thus got on the wrong side of Putin, is cheering with every strike by a NATO-missile, or Ukrainian drone, on Russian oil tanks. Like another propaganda outlet on 'X', which scoffed the Russians because they lost their valuable oil, while gaining nothing but some rural pastures in the East of Ukraine. Yes, it is true that Russian storage facilities go up in flames every now and then when NATO-missiles or Ukrainian drones get past the defensive shield, but the formerly Ukrainian territory the Russians are now occupying is containing all those extremely valuable minerals which the West was interested in as it concocted their plans to overextend and unbalance Russia by throwing Ukraine under the bus. Yet, that was not the reason for Russia to engage Ukraine and NATO in this war. The reason for this war was NATO-expansion, as made crystal clear by Putin himself in 2007, at the Security Conference in Munich. But destroying oil facilities, blowing up gas-pipelines, pirating their oil-tankers, and stealing their money, will do nothing to convince them that a settlement should include some kind of arrangement to compensate Ukraine for their loss. No Russian 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine and the European NATO-countries by the time they realise they lost. No reward for the perverted. Save for the masochists among us who crave pain, loss and humiliation, I suppose.

Go Back

Comment