Brazil worries about The Great Seizure

Introduction:

Even though I had written the following piece about 18 months ago, it’s worth repeating – as are warnings which sometimes have to be given many times before they sink in. When I first posted this, I worried that I was being overly anxious. However, considering how events have unfolded in Afghanistan and Libya, a state of high anxiety is becoming increasingly justifiable.

Don’t think the Neo-Cons have disappeared simply because we now have a black president. Don’t think US ambitions for world control have been put on any kind of back-burner.

I offer this piece and encourage you to keep a watchful eye on developments in Central and South America. It’s too easy to overlook what’s going on in our own backyard, while we focus on antics overseas. If more people exercise greater overall diligence, perhaps the US government would rein in some of its more adventurous schemes.

As posted on Dec. 24, 2009 – a warning

On Dec. 19, I had posted on Gaia [a now defunct website] a blog I'd just written entitled, The Great Seizure. Then two days later I happened to see, on Yahoo News, an article bearing this title: "Resource-rich Brazil puts up its guard." This article supports a statement I made in The Great Seizure: "Don't suppose for a moment that our ‘allies' and others aren't aware of all this."

My thesis - the "all this" referred to above - was stated in my very first sentence: "The Great Seizure will occur when the United States uses its military to start taking stuff."

From: "Resource-rich Brazil puts up its guard":

QUOTE:

Brazil's planned reentry into the satellite business ... [is] part of a far-reaching defense plan to ward off potential plunderers of its immense natural resources, [Brazilian] officials say.

"In the coming era of scarcity, we're going to have to defend what we've got with our claws, our feet and our weapons," said a consultant to the Defense ministry [of Brazil] who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak. "The challenges could come from neighbors, they could come from the U.S., they could come from China - all allies now, but potential competitors in the future."

:UNQUOTE: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-brazil-defense18-2009dec18,0,6675591.story

Let's get two things straight right off the bat. First, this Brazilian consultant was indeed authorized to speak, but was also ordered to say he wasn't. You may be very sure the Brazilian government wants it to become widely known that it sees the U.S. as a potential plunderer of its resources. I'll come right out and say it: "The U.S. will do its level best to plunder Brazil's resources." Can there be any doubt about this? Oh, and don't tell me "we're the good guys," since nobody can possibly believe that any more.

Second, when this consultant said, "The challenges could ... come from the U.S., they could come from China," he only mentioned China and alluded to other "potential competitors" in order to avoid the appearance of singling out the United States. However, it is the United States, and the United States alone, that his words were really targeting. Think about this for a moment: He couldn't have meant China, since any Chinese threats would be strongly rebuffed by the US itself invoking the Monroe Doctrine. That doctrine, in fact, would serve to rebuff any non-American country.

Which invites a question: Should Brazil fear any of its Central and South American neighbors? The answer to that is a resounding "no," since (hands down) Brazil has the strongest military in those two areas. In fact, according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/ (which ranks countries militarily, but excludes consideration of nuclear weapons), Brazil's military strength is rated #8 in the world, just behind Germany. The only regional power even close to Brazil is Argentina, ranked #33.

Actually, Central and South American nations will end up looking to Brazil to unify the region and lead the resistance against Washington's designs. I cite three points from Hugh O'Shaughnessy's article* entitled "US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America":

• From the Caribbean to Brazil, political opposition to US plans for ‘full-spectrum operations' is escalating rapidly.

• The United States is massively building up its potential for nuclear and non-nuclear strikes in Latin American and the Caribbean by acquiring unprecedented freedom of action in seven new military, naval and air bases in Colombia.

• The fact that the US gets half its oil from Latin America was one of the reasons the US Fourth Fleet was re-established in the region's waters in 2008. [I disagree with the author here: The Fourth Fleet was re-established to facilitate The Great Seizure.]

   * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-builds-up-its-bases-in-oilrich-south-america-1825398.html

The writing is on the wall:

Pertinent link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Armed_Forces#Extensive_Modernization_Program

This link has a section entitled Extensive Modernization Program, which includes two ominous sentences:

• In 2008, Brazil has signed a strategic partnership with France and Russia to trade military technology.

• In a second agreement, France will provide technical assistance to Brazil so that Brazil can design and produce indigenous nuclear powered submarines, to be completely built in Brazil [my emphasis].

This EMP section does not mention the United States at all. However, perhaps there's a reason for this:

QUOTE:

Christian Girault, a Latin American geopolitics specialist at France's National Centre for Scientific Research, told FRANCE 24. "The United States is traditionally Brazil's strongest ally. But now [Brazil] is looking to diversify its partners... because the economic crisis has reduced the prestige of the United States."

:UNQUOTE:

[ http://www.france24.com/en/20090907-sarkozy-lula-silva-brazil-france-combat-fighter-jets-rafale-military-defence ]

I respectfully disagree with Mssr. Girault. Brazil is "looking to diversity its partners" alright, but not "because the economic crisis has reduced the prestige of the United States." Prestige has nothing to do with Brazil's diversification. Distrust of US intentions has everything to do with it.

For at least the time being, however, the US will tolerate Brazilian expenditures for military upgrading for two reasons:

• As an assist for the world economy.

• Because it will prove to be an ineffective counterbalance to US forces - no build-up Brazil undertakes could possibly resist a serious US assault.

What can Brazil hope to accomplish?

Upgrading Brazil's military can have several useful purposes. By specifically citing the US as a potential plunderer, Brazil can hope to embarrass the United States into behaving itself. But...it takes a lot to embarrass the US.

Perhaps by assuming the mantle of Central and South American leadership, Brazil hopes to galvanize a broad-based opposition to US interference. This would prove particularly difficult for the US to counter if two events come to pass:

• Admission of Brazil to the UN Security Council.

• Brazil initiating some type of foreign aid program to help its less fortunate neighbors, in addition to developing joint economic ventures with these countries.

I hope, however, that Brazil's enhanced military doesn't end up persecuting domestic dissidents or overthrowing its government. Among others things, that might encourage direct US intervention (okay, I'll say it: "invasion").

"It didn't have to come to this."

I hope we don't end up saying, "It didn't have to come to this," if the US should end up subjugating Brazil as part of The Great Seizure. When I campaigned for the US presidency in 2008, I included this (as point #21) in my 47-point contract:

QUOTE:

Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will allow Cuba to reoccupy that land, as is its sovereign right.

:UNQUOTE.

I wanted to send a clear message to our Central and South American neighbors, by means of this humble token of imperialistic renouncement (point #21):

"Gone are the days of US interference in your affairs. Long live the right of self-determination."

Unfortunately, my campaign for the presidency never got off the ground. For if it had, I'm sure my 47-points would have been embraced as breaths of fresh air. More than that: As vital. But, no, my offer of a legally-enforceable contract to the electorate did not reach enough ears. As a consequence, we have President Obama leading us inexorably to The Great Seizure.

Well, I tried my best to stop the madness which will surely unfold. For my failure, you have my apology.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"It will be interesting to see if Brazil succeeds in fulfilling its destiny or, instead, becomes just another vassal state" - Steve.

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

S&G's "The Boxer" - Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie

Today, I'm going to take on The Boxer, a song by Simon and Garfunkel which was written back in 1970. By "take on" I mean: after having wrestled with The Boxer, I can offer a unique interpretation of what its lyrics might mean, had they been written today.

Hear the song on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKjEHfHINQ

First the Lyrics:

I am just a poor boy, though my story's seldom told,

How I squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles,

Such are promises

All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear

And disregards the rest ....

When I left my home and my family, I was no more than a boy

In the company of strangers

In the quiet of a railway station, running' scared

Laying low, seeking out the poorer quarters, where the ragged people go

Looking for the places only they would know.

[REFRAIN]: Lie, lie, lie.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

Lie, lie, lie.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

Asking only workman's wages, I come lookin' for a job, but I get no offers
Just a come on from the whores on 7^th avenue

I do declare, there were times when I was so lonesome

I took some comfort there.

Lie, lie, lie.

And I'm laying out my winter clothes, wishing I was gone, goin' home

Where the New York City winters aren't bleedin' me, leadin' me,

Going home.

In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade

And he carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him

‘til he cried out in his anger and his shame

I am leaving, I am leaving, but the fighter still remains.

Yes he still remains.

[REFRAIN]

Interpretation by Steven Searle

"Poor boy" means two things in this song:

ONE: All of us Americans, in that we are "poor" in spiritual terms. We are becoming increasingly dispirited or (in many cases) "morally bankrupt." Some are poorer than others, but almost all of us are indeed poor, in terms of not speaking out against U.S. aggression. I'm also thinking of how many people voted in 2004, for instance in the key state of Ohio, to re-elect Bush for the most selfish of reasons: The promise of access to cheap oil once we manage to ["quickly," we were assured] "stabilize" Iraq.

TWO: "Poor boy" also refers to the financially challenged who enlist in the military.

"My story's seldom told" means:

We don't like to tell the story of our (ongoing) national slide into moral bankruptcy. Instead, we create a myth about being on a mission from God to save the world, whereas thinly-disguised selfishness and greed are in reality at play. Also, the story of the poor/destitute is seldom told, since we much prefer indulging in tales of superheroes, American Idols, and those who are legends in their own minds.

"Squandered my resistance" means:

Giving up our good common sense (or "sales resistance") in exchange for nothing clearly expressed ("mumbles"). However, even if our leaders had "clearly expressed" themselves, they could not be held to account in a court of law for violating an oral contract. Politicians cannot be held to their promises, neither those in writing nor those spoken. I have, however, detailed on this blog certain creative ways in which politicians could enter into enforceable, written contracts. If they really wanted to. But they don't. Though I do...and I'm the only candidate for office who ever has.

"Squandered" means to cause to disperse. Instead of "dispersing" our resistance, we as a people should have gone into Solidarity mode. That is by, instead, concentrating our resistance. This would have been the only way to slam the brakes on the Neo-Cons, with a massive Polish-type Solidarity resistance. However, our Oligarchs (capably represented by Barack and Hillary...hell, all the Dems/Pubs) have become quite adept at dividing and conquering us. Truly, they would fear our unity.

"Pocketful of mumbles" means:

The "pocket" being referred to is "the politician's mouth." These are "deep pockets" indeed, in terms of being a bottomless well of things indistinctly expressed ("mumbles").

"Such are promises, All lies and jest" means:

To "jest" means to speak or act without seriousness. Anyone can promise (or "jest"), but such utterances should be treated as being "all lies," unless either backed up by an enforceable contract or coming from an impeccable person (by definition, not a Pub or a Dem).

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" means:

It's so true: The electorate doesn't really "hear" (critically evaluate) what our leaders say [just think: “Change you can believe in”]. They pick and choose (what pushes their buttons) and "disregard the rest."

"When I left my home and my family, I was no more than a boy" means:

"When I left the true source of my values (home, family, church), I was young and innocent and placed my trust in the false prophets who are our political leaders. I learned to say ‘Yes, sir,' [or, referring to the electorate, I learned to go along and trust them] and their goals became my goals."

"In the company of strangers" means:

Think of "a company [that is, military unit] of soldiers." Even the word "company" (in the military sense of the word) might come to undergo a change of definition. Maybe, in the future, after a few more foreign military adventures, "a company of soldiers" might come to literally and exclusively mean an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise. The way our troops were used in Iraq (and are currently being used in Afghanistan) very strongly heralds this alternate definition.

In another sense, all of us Americans are "in the company of strangers" in terms of how poorly we communicate with each other. Paul Simon's song Sound of Silence works that theme rather nicely.

"In the quiet of a railway station" means:

The "railway station" here refers to Iraq, which is (in terms of the Project for the New American Century) merely a way station (that is, an intermediate stopping place - as on a railroad). What comes next, after we leave this way station? Iran, of course. Oh, lest I overlook something: We will never completely leave our Iraqi way station, but the idea is for most of our troops to be able to leave so as to push on to the next way station.

[NOTE: Since April of 2007, when I originally posted this piece, that “next way station” turned out to be Afghanistan in terms of our military surge there – thanks, Barack!]

How can Iraq be considered a "quiet" railway station? That's easy. Most of Iraq is, relatively speaking, very quiet ... in the ways that count. Most serious attacks occur in only a few places within Iraq's borders. The "quiet" I'm referring to, though, involves the ignored voices of the Iraqi citizen who has no voice as far as our leaders are concerned. Democracy is just a word, since only the voices of Iraqi leaders and opinion-makers (especially, the corrupt ones) are heard by our leaders. And those voices are heard in secret, behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny. So, yes, Iraq is a very "quiet railway station" indeed.

The Boxer's next 20 words ("laying low" through "they would know"):

Our soldier would sometimes have to be "runnin' scared" and sometimes would have to be "laying low." He would be "seeking out the poor quarters (where the insurgency is strongest), where the “ragged people go” (sounds like he’s singing: “rag head people;” many of our troops call the insurgents - in fact, all locals - "rag heads," referring to their traditional head-covering), looking for the places only they would know (the secret hiding places which locals could attack from or retreat to)." Our troops would be "looking for [those] places" in order to kill the insurgents.

In terms of the U.S. electorate, too many of us are "laying low," instead of boldly challenging the Neo-Cons and their false religion of world conquest. We are "seeking out the poorer quarters," in terms of how more and more of us are being pushed into difficult financial straits as individuals and as a nation, due to how surely our wars are bankrupting us.

We are becoming "the ragged people," that is worn out from stress and strain. There are certain places (in the mind) where "ragged people" "go" (that is, to retreat from reality). More and more of us are seeking those places, which are better known to the mentally unstable. Perhaps, often enough, mental instability stems from living in the stressful schizophrenic culture we're watching (from the sidelines) our leaders build for us.

"Asking only workman's wages" through "some comfort there" means:

With the depressed economy which could well become the permanent outcome of our wars, all of us might end up "asking only workman's wages" (but getting no job offers) in spite of our loftier qualifications.

In terms of our "poor boy" (before he joined the military), he might have found few opportunities for advancement in the civilian world. So he enlists. But after he joins, he remembers several false starts. A lot of young men will check out a military recruiter (another meaning of "the whores on 7^th avenue") several "times when I was so lonesome" so he could take some comfort there (as he listens to the recruiter spin out his promises of a better life in the military).

Next stanza:

Our soldiers in the Middle East war zones or civilians in the U.S. could be saying:

"In my mind, I'm laying out my winter clothes, which will be needed no matter what time of year, since a great, gray ‘winter' of discontent has settled over the U.S., and one must properly ‘clothe' oneself to survive in that. I wish I was going home to the way things were before the ‘New York City winters' became a year-round season nationwide due to the ugly turn our foreign policy took after the events of 9/11 (which took place, most prominently, in New York City)."

Last Stanza:

"In the clearing stands a boxer":

"Boxer" refers to our troops. The conventional (very Western) way they fight is well described by "boxer." A boxer fights with only part of his body actually landing any blows, in a "clearing" (a well-defined battlefield), with distinct rules of engagement. Of course, the rest of the world laughs at the limited martial art which is boxing, choosing instead to engage more of their wholeness (body and mind, combined with avoiding "clearings" where a boxer would have an advantage).

I'm going to stretch a definition here, concerning the word "glove" which can also mean "gauntlet." "Gauntlet" means a cross fire of any kind; also: ordeal [as in] ran the gauntlet of criticism and censure. With this broadened definition, our boxer can indeed incur blows from "every glove" without having to actually face another boxer (that is, another warrior fighting under the same rules of engagement, who would also be wearing traditional boxing gloves).

Of course, the kind of "cross fire" that would most seriously wound our boxer would be "cutting" remarks" from our own citizenry. These "cutting remarks" (urging withdrawal from our wars in a cuttingly critical manner) would be enough to induce both "anger and shame." And cause our boxer (or at least his manager) to exclaim (on behalf of the boxer), "I am leaving, I am leaving."

But, guess what. Last line of the song: "but the fighter still remains, yes he still remains." Words to the contrary, boxers don't like to quit (nor, especially, do their managers). Our troops/boxers will be remaining in "the clearing” – which is Iraq and Afghanistan – for decades to come. And by "clearing," I mean a zone cleared away of any obstacle that could stand in the way of U.S. world domination via the need to dominate those two countries for the time being.

The Refrain

I love Paul Simon's use of the accusatory, oft-repeated refrain: "Lie, lie, lie...," which blends in beautifully with the dramatic and battle-like music and effects at the end of the song. In real life, the sounds of battle and of lies go well together, often becoming indistinguishable - one from the other.


I hereby dedicate The Boxer to George Bush, his most able follower Barack Obama, and the untold thousands within our Shadow Government who have given us the New Militarism. All based on lies, lies, lies, and more lies, lies ...


Another Meaning of "The Boxer"

After playing The Boxer over and over in my mind, I came up with yet another meaning, having nothing to do with the song itself. This meaning just spontaneously occurred to me:


“The Boxer" is none other than George W. Bush who was personally responsible for "boxing up [in coffins]" our dead troops to be airlifted home for burial. Iraq was his war, our dead are his fault. And, no, I don't exaggerate when I say this. Another such “Boxer” has established himself in the person of Barack Obama – for much the same reasons.


NOTE: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1980) is the source of all definitions above, which are underlined.


Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Join the new American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents.”


Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com