This blog entry is in english. Yet english is not my native language (italian is), so bear some indulgence with typos or grammatical mistakes. Also, I have been told that I write complex things - whether this is good or bad I don't know: but so, if you are unfamiliar with complex prose you may see grammatical errors not only where there could be some, but also where just a prose you're not acquainted with is. Native speakers with an A+ grade in english say my english, obviously not perfect, imports no major issues. Lend a deaf ear to the errors, vocally disagree with my thesis if you want, but enjoy the style all the while.
Note: The following essay refers to the anti-American propaganda referenced in the box at bottom of the essay itself. I chose to put such reference at bottom instead than at top, as it would have been logically more convincing, for mere technical reasons.How should data be presented? Should we say that USSR is some millions of squared miles wide, or should we say it is as big as 1/5th of the globe?
What is more fit to be lent to a propagandistic purpose?
Analogously, should we say the USA spend the 50% of the world expenditure in weapons (like the propaganda example argues), or should we state it like this:
GNP percentage spent in armaments on 1999:
USA: 4%
Russia: 11%
Iraq 18%
France: 3.5%
Morocco: 4%
Mexico: 1%
Norway: 3%
Syria: 8%
Israel: 8%
South Korea: 4%
North Korea: 26%
So who is more to be considered now unfair: the USA spending the money it can afford to spend, or the country that spends the money it cannot afford at the price of starving its own population?
I don't know these things, but the way data are presented is a well know (and actually old: dates from Vance Packard and the early 50s at least).
Should we say that if a country owns wealth, it is unfair? Of course we could: It is enough to present the data as if it were, regardless of the fact the country that has some wealth has it because it managed to develop a social and economic system that can put to work a reasonable amount of the population (and the presence of some mild unemployment rate is physiological even accordingly to Keynes, who was a "leftist"), has a system that allows men capitalize savings (it is useless to talk of provisions, as Amartya Sen and Ralph Dahrendorf teach if we forget to talk of the entitlements that allow a population to access the wealth that there could be), and has a system that can reward jobs with meaningful salaries (in Milosevic Yugoslavia the average salary was of a few dollars a month, because that is the price man's job is evaluated in such places).
So, how should we present the data?
Apparently, your mind has been impressed by this long list. But please, do not be impressed. Presenting data in a misleading way is a well affirmed way to gain consensus, and of course never forget that the rumor doesn't make the majority: because since the dawn of the ages, minorities have been noisy, and majorities typically silent.
The whole deception lies in this: the list is meant to portray the USA as the perpetrators of the greatest evils on earth.
Are these persons aware of what really cruel regimes do? perhaps to appreciate fully the difference between a hypothetically perceived despotism and a physically experienced one, some just need to get a vacation in Hitler's Berlin, or in current Russia, or in Stalin's USSR, or in China, or a season in Teheran.
That would fix it all.
I'd like to emphasize another aspect of the issue, if there is an issue at all in that propaganda: the lofty adjective: "estimated".
A long string of Questions (posed in the right propagandistic way) followed by a long string of Answers (by whom?), invariably "estimated".
"Estimated": a word that says nothing about the evaluators, and none the less entirely founds its presumptive authority on the Anonymous Expert Incorporated, the unknown "backdoor guys" that because of the very same fact they're apparently engaged in making estimations presumably on an alleged professional basis, must also be competent and proficient at it.
"Estimated" is a word that while conceals the doubt it should have immediately raised (if I "estimate", I implicitly acknowledge I cannot assess; therefore instead of the facts I must have been resorting to a set of criteria, preconceptions and allegations or guesswork of my own about which nothing is revealed), simultaneously raises the certainty it should have not raised: that the "estimation", being such, is also esteemed.
And they are not the CIA, which may be paid to lie: the more they are anonymous, the more they are supposed to be telling the truth by default.
For instance: how many Iraqis have been tortured in 20 years by Saddam Hussein? The estimated figure is 450,000.
Who estimated that?
Me, now.
Last but not least, such "estimations" draw some raw data which is already moot insofar it is "estimated", and append to it a conclusion:
estimated number X - as a consequence of Y.
Indeed, that's a wealth of estimations, for each of them is double edged: includes 2!
On such basis, pundits of ignorance build political theories, sociological doctrines, and all encompassing conclusions (ending up, in the case in point with a quotation by ML King:... an American, not a Japanese...): the immense and admirable castle within which they make a fool of themselves and bother us at their own exclusive discretion.
With leaders like them, the leaders they opposite have secured their jobs forever: I wouldn't trade one of those unappealing Bushes with a whole Politburo of esteemed gentlemen like them.
And eventually, a cause that to make proselytes is bound to serve itself with such daily fixes of self-deception and produces dishonest intellectual fruits which should be called by their proper name (fraud), is a cause that no one should support, for it admits it cannot produce either prosperity or equality - in fact: equality or prosperity in fraud?
If one has a sound faith in the correctness of one's fantasy, why should one long so much for fabricated facts to uphold it with?
It makes me suspect Antoine Lavoisier (the french chemist, quoted by Michael White in his book: Rivals - conflict as the fuel of science) was right: "we become in some measure interested in deceiving ourselves".
The fundamental truth with the USA (and I'm not American) is not that they have been fundamentally evil, but that they have been fundamentally good both in time and space.
No nation is immune by big mistakes, and Vietnam certainly was (although when the USA went away from Cambodia, the alternative project of Pol Pot set in); the less you're immune when you share great responsibilities.
But when I see countries with much less responsibilities produce almost exclusively errors, I can't help but think that if I put together Russia, China, all the Middle East with Iran Talibans and Iraq in, North Korea and also France, all together still do not amount to anything as good as the United States of America.
Analogously it has been argued by the above mentioned types of estimations, that the USA would produce more riches than other countries because and only inasmuch as they would have been stealing their own affluence by the latter, draining and stripping these other countries of their own wealth, therefore describing a process lacking whose dis-allocation those latter countries would have been as wealthy as the USA or nearly so (USA which, with our bewilderment, we are to discover pretty soon that are much less wealthy than we are so eager to assume when we invariably cast them into the foil of all the rest).
The last embodiment of such line of reasoning has been recently bestowed upon Finland as well, for it has been revealed that Finland produces more richness than the whole of the Middle East although having only 5.5 millions of inhabitants: which immediately ushers us into Alice in wonderland's political economy, not insofar it is not true that Finland does -it does-, but insomuch as it is true and thenceforth the above mentioned conclusions that some drew are all invariably and blatantly false: how many nations are stealing the same wealth?
In fact, if the proportion some draw their conclusions from about the unfairness of the USA wealth, is the proportion between the produced wealth and the amount of inhabitants, well that's called National Product pro capita ratio, so let's quit wishful mathematics and let's do the real reckoning.
MIDDLE EAST's COUNTRIES NP/INHABITANTS in year 1996:
1,250 Iraq (GNP: 24000 mill.)
2,680 Iran (GNP: 161136)
7,040 Saudi Arabia (GNP: 133540)
1,120 Syria (GNP: 15780)
1,510 Jordan (GNP: 6354)
17,390 Kuwait (GNP: 28941)
17,400 United Arab Emirates (GNP: 42806)
11,600 Qatar (GNP: 7448)
7,840 Bahrain (GNP: 4525)
4,820 Oman (GNP: 10578)
260 Yemen (GNP: 4044)
2,660 Lebanon (GNP: 10673)
______________
75,570 (GNP: 449825)
divided by 12 gives:
6297
Let's now include also Africa:
AFRICA's COUNTRIES NP/INHABITANTS in year 1996:
790 Egypt
6510 Libya
1600 Algeria
1110 Morocco
1820 Tunisia
460 Mauritania
250 Mali
220 Niger
180 Chad
310 Sudan
100 Ethiopia
150 Somalia
600 Senegal
320 Gambia
550+250+380=1180 Guineas
180 Sierra
390 Liberia
660 Ivory Coast
390 Ghana
230 Burkina
310 Togo
370 Benin
260 Nigeria
650 Cameroon
340 Republic of Central Africa
240 Uganda
280 Kenya
120+680=800 Congos
3490 Gabon
410 Angola
400 Zambia
120 Tanzania
80 Mozambique
540 Zimbabwe
3020 Botswana
2000 Namibia
230 Madagascar
2270 Lesotho
1170 Swaziland
3160 South Africa
______________
37,590
divided by 50 is
751
Well, Finland's number pro capita is: 20580, well above the whole of Africa: is Finland stealing from Africa or from Middle East?
And if Finland is stealing from Middle East, is then Middle East stealing from Africa to compensate for the much bigger wealth it produces with an half Africa's population?
And what's France or Belgium doing?
And if Finland is stealing from Africa and the USA too, what makes us believe that Africa has to produce a wealth of 47560 (Finland + USA) namely 1.7 times the USA with a population that is slightly double than the USA? And how to account then for Canada whose pro capita is 19380 namely just a bit less than the USA? Who's stealing Canada from, with a population of just 30 millions?
And how to account for Japan whose pro capita is 39640 (and a GNP of 4963587) namely bigger than all Africa and all Middle East once again, and much bigger than the USA and Europe although with much less population (125 millions)? Whom is Japan "stealing" from?
Well, let's reckon Europe:
EUROPE's COUNTRIES NP/INHABITANTS in year 1996:
20580 Finland (GNL 105174 mill.)
31250 Norway (GNL 136077)
23750 Sweden (GNL 209720)
20580 Finland (GNL 105174)
24950 Iceland (GNL 6686)
14710 Ireland (GNL 52765)
1510 Yugoslavia (GNL 15910)
18700 United Kingdom (GNL 1094734)
9740 Portugal (GNL 96689)
13580 Spain (GNL 532347)
24990 France (GNL 1451051)
27510 Germany (GNL 2252343)
24710 Belgium (GNL 250710)
24000 Holland (GNL 371039)
41210 Luxembourg (GNL 16876)
33510 Liechtenstein (GNL 978)
26890 Austria (GNL 216547)
19020 Italy (GNL 1088085)
40630 Switzerland (GNL 286014)
3870 Czech Republic (GNL 39990)
2950 Slovakia (GNL 15848)
2790 Poland (GNL 107829)
4120 Hungary (GNL 42129)
1480 Romania (GNL 33488)
1330 Bulgaria (GNL 11225)
8210 Greece (GNL 85885)
1500 Bosnia (GNL 5900)
3250 Croatia (GNL 15508)
8200 Slovenia (GNL 16382)
670 Albania (GNL 2199)
26470 Monaco (GNL 847)
29890 Denmark (GNL 156027)
16310 Andorra (GNL 1034)
______________
552,860 (GNP: 8,823,210)
divided by 49 is 14175
which is 18 times what is produced pro capita in Africa, 2.2 times what is produced in the Middle East, and still more than 2 times what they produce together; and if we'd subtract from Europe a few states that account for nothing but none the less gets divided as well by the eventual result thus shrinking it without really accounting for the produced wealth, Europe produces more than what the USA pro capita is: in fact nominally Europe pro capita is as many as 20.4 times the USA pro capita, but dividing by the amount of countries and taking in only the really productive west of Europe (that is, discarding countries whose GNP is below 107,000) it is 29890 pro capita against 26980 of the USA. The USA population in the 90s was 267 millions, Europe's was 703 millions, but if we take in only the 14 countries we considered for the 29890 figure, then Europe's population is 280 millions: it has namely a proportion of 2.6 against the 703 millions and nearly 1 to 1 (1.04) against the most developed Europe: namely west Europe is wealthier pro capita than the USA.
But now, if so: how many Middle East and Africa are there to be allegedly raided so lavishly by so many who stand on a equal basis?
Russia's pro capita is 2240, its GNP is 331948: are perhaps European nations stealing from Russia too? But how would it be possible, considering that half of Europe was in Russian hands until a few decades ago? Wasn't Russia predating on them?
And if China's pro capita is as little as 620, should we argue that a if cloistered country like China that still lives in a basically communist environment despite its huge population (the bigger in the world, with a soil rich of any type of resources, stretching for a wide compass) produces less than Albania, is therefore in this condition because Albania is someway, somewhat stealing some portion of its wealth too?
The United States with 40 states in them have a pro capita of 26980, less than Germany alone, less than Denmark alone, less than Austria alone, less than Japan alone, which have all much less population. Is perhaps Germany stealing a tad from the United States?
And what obviously matters is how much is produced pro capita, otherwise you could never compare in a proportionate way smaller countries with bigger ones.
Now, what accounts for the differences is therefore the way the social contract is arranged and how a man's work is evaluated and what chances a man has to find a valuable job in his/her own country; it seems that Europe has comely benefited by being "invaded" by the American model after it attempted the fascist and nazifascist one when on its own. Who's right, Amartya Sen or the Anonymous -and ungrateful?- Experts Inc.?
That the estimations of the Anonymous Experts Inc. were flawed, we already sensed: because if the equation that predicates the wealth of one is feasible only out of the impoverishment of the other would have ever been a true equation, or even a slightly plausible one, then we should have been living in another Universe, where 5 planet earth would be available to make such foul equation finally square.
Leave these guys implement a policy whatever, and you're to see what ensues.
Love for a thesis is more profound than any ideology, and persuades us into the blindest of the blunders; truth has never been our concern, not even the welfare of the world or equity in the allocation of resources have ever been; what we really cherish are just our prejudices insofar they're functional to the safeguard of our neurosis, and the symbolism behind which we conceal it to ourselves: and then the world can go to hell with our finest prescriptions, for what else matters once we have established a fantasy able of securing and saving our manias from our critical faculties threatening of insisting on ourselves instead than on - the "USA"?
PS One word should be spent for the "children" issue, regardless of how repulsive talking about this may be: we are forced to do insofar this propaganda doesn't hesitate one second to do so.
The list argues also, among many other things, that 50% (still this magic number) of the civilian victims of gulf war 1991 were children.
Now, how comes there are so many children and they would have all been infallibly in the fire line? Curious, to say the least.
And how comes UN (UN, not US - with good peace of those who use these arguments whilst at the same time ask for UN and not US interventions) sanctions are infallibly reported as killing millions of "children"?
While the propaganda unfolds its "estimated" figures, no one notices the sheer absurdity of them.
In fact, and regardless of lavish palaces built by the Iraqi regime amidst famine and the collections of crimson Rolls Royces, what is out there that would allegedly be so smart in famine to pinpoint kids and kill them so wantonly, while it spares adults? Conversely, if there is a UN sanctioned famine there and it affects kids and adults, what is out there that makes the adults invariably unfit to appear in the numbers they're never reported with?
And now an example of such anti-American propaganda:Take the War on Iraq IQ Test
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?
1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the US have? A: 6%
2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have? A: 50%
3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves? A: Saudi Arabia
4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves? A: Iraq
5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? A: $900+ billion
6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.? A:50%
7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the UN? A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the US retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).
8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II? A: 86 million
9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? A: Since the early 1980's.
10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own? A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.
11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran? A: No
12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988? A: 5,000
13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time? A:0
14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam? A: 17million.
15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack? A: No
16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? A: 35,000
17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War ? A: 0
18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front? A: 6,000
19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War? A: 40 tons
20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994? A: 700%
21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991? A: 80%
22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defence? A: No
23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago? A: No
24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3? A: 10,000
25. Q: What percentage of these will be children? A: Over 50%
26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq? A: 11 years
27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: No
28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: 20 million
29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports? A: 12 years
30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)? A: 38
31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraqin 1999 (per 1,000 births)? A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)
32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions? A: 1.5 million
33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997? A: 750,000
34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq? A: No
35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? A: 300
36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems? A: 5
37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ? A: Yes
38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history. A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.
39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled? A: 90%
40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in? A: Yes
41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992? A: Over 65
42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990? A: 30+
43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year? A: $5 billion
44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons? A: 8
45. Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got? A: 0
46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got? A: over 10,000
47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons? A: the US
48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have? A: Over 400
49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapons inspections? A: No
50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories is controlled by Israeli settlements? A: 42%
51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land? A: Yes
52. Q: Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.? A: ????
53. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"? A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
This text is protected by Copyright and cannot be reproduced, either in totality or in part, without the consent of the author. Also derivative works cannot be produced without the consent of the author.
Minor excerpts may be quoted as long as a clearly readable link leading to this file is put in place soon after or soon before the quotation. Only the author has the right to reproduce in its totality this work on other servers.
JoinAll for free
searchprofiles
UpdateLogin
English
Italiano
Deutsch
Delicious
To perform this operation it is necessary to be Full Poster members. If you are a member, insert your Identification Number and Password in the proper fields, and then proceed: