Atomic Bombs were actually irrelevant.

It's gradually coming into focus that the whole of the US is just one big fabrication and lie. Literally nothing about the US is true: a world of shady salesmen and con artists.

Much is made of the Atomic Bomb drops on 1945 but is it really true Japan surrendered because of that?

If A-Bombs were that scary how did the Korean War (1950 to 1953) happen? Russia had literally only just tested there first A-bomb on 29th Aug 1949 while the US already had 700 war heads. Besides USSR had no means to deliver it until 1953 with the R-7 Semyorka. So the US had overwhelming nuclear capability at the start of the Korean War who would dare fight them if A-bombs were such a threat?

Given their overwhelming nuclear superiority why didn't US just threaten any berligerents with A-Bombing ? In fact why didn't the whole world just surrender to the US?

The truth is that the worst terrorist attack in human history was the firebombing of Tokyo. Official figures put the death toll at more than twice the A-Bombs. These figures are obviously conservative to hide the true horrific scale of mass slaughter of innocent civilians at the hands of the Americans. Given that the US was capable of such vast destruction anyway why should Japan have cared about A-Bombs? America was set to genocide all Japanese with or without A-Bombs. So its clearly nonsense that the A-bombs achieved anything. The real reason the Japanese surrendered was Russia entering the war. At 11 PM on the 8th August Russia notified Japan that from the following morning they were at war. Japan could not fight on both fronts and so the war was over. Now the US could not realistically drop an experimental weapon on a country that had surrendered, although they may have wanted to, their propaganda is not so great they could lie about this crime. They knew the Russian plan so they knew exactly how much time they had to test their weapons. The morning of 9th they flew a pre flight to drop test devices on the city as they had Hiroshima and then dropped the bomb killing 10s of 1000s of innocent men, women and children as literally only the Americans seem able to do. No other country or people have ever even conceived of destruction on this scale.

In one bomb drop the US killed 8 times more people instantly than the NAZIS had killed in the whole of their bombing campaigns on the UK.

It is a total injustice in fact to like other countries with the scale of destruction that the US seems to think is normal. And those great slaughters the US likes to talk about are often vastly exaggerated and lacking any real evidence. The most famous is the NAZI Holocaust of Jews. It is not controversial to say that the majority of Holocaust victims died from starvation not from gas chambers. And its interesting that over half died from the effects of starvation after liberation. What appears to have happened is a vast starvation event. Now people can discuss whether it was the cruel intentions of the NAZIS to eradicate the Jewish race by starvation, but you might have though they could have done this before the end of the war. Why keep so many starving until the end? It seems much more likely that whatever the NAZIS did was overwhelmed by a humanitarian catastrophe as the Allied Invasion destroyed the country, its agriculture and supply lines. It was not just in the 1000 work camps where people starved, they starved across the whole of Germany. And to underline the problem when the US liberated Germany Eisenhower refused food aid to German nationals to quell any rebellion. Food was clearly the defining feature of the end of the war. And its doubly suspicious that according to official figures no one in German died from starvation caused by the war. The US says that every death was a "war crime." How suspicious and convenient.

It is blantant lies like which I believe the US uses to hide the real war crimes of WW2 that were in fact committed by the Allies.

This is not the forgive the NAZIS for the vast atrocities. But its to put them in perspective. The mass shooting and massacres of Russians and Jews by the NAZIS are no less unforgivable and appalling. But sat side by side the mass bombings of the Allies they are actually quite small war crimes. A man with a machine gun mowing down a line of villagers verses a week of fire bombing or an atomic bomb don't really compare in the world of war crimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Is Capitalism really responsible for increasing life expectancy?

People like bleating sheep are always making the boring case for Capitalism. But where is this case?

In UK we've had pure Capitalism since the Georgian period of the 1700s.

Increasing life expectancy is often seen as a triumph of Capitalism. But actually where is the evidence?

In actual fact Capitalism lead to slums and mass outbreaks of disease and death. Mass graves from the period of pure Capitalism and Work Houses etc show people malnourished and diseased.

There is no evidence that Capitalism increased life expectancy. In fact if we could extend the graph backwards we would probably see that rural people with access to farm land and uncrowded living conditions would have been much more healthy and had longer life expectancy. I'm on the lookout for this data because I suspect it so flies in the face of Pro-Capitalist doctrine that it may be buried as absurd.

Anyway what the Pro-Capitalists forget is that the horrors of Dickensian Victorian Britain gave rise to a strong conscience in the minds of the wealthy and that is where Socialism was born.

The Socialist revolution in thinking in the 1800s is what is much more likely to have contributed to increasing life expectancy.

After the start of critical Social Theory with Marx in the early 1800s people began to think about forming a properly functioning society where poverty was a thing of the past and all people had a stake in society.

Obviously this is anathema to Capitalism that needs workers and owners, and there has been a Capitalist backlash in the latter part of the 1900s culminating in Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. For the last 40 years the progress of the Socialists has been steadily dismantled.

I believe, while many Socialist institution still exist like a National Health service and a Social Security system to keep people off the streets and out of slums we are returning to Victorian Britain and it is worth watching the life expectancy as Capitalism resurges.

Now it is perhaps unexpected that the NHS and Vaccines programmes did not change the already existing rises in life expectancy. It seems if we were to point at the key factor it would be just the emptying the slums and increasing standards of living across society, and not just the wealthy as it had been before. Improvements in medicine like the invention of Salvarsan 606 in 1909 or the discovery of Penicillin in 1928 and its mass production by the 1950s did not change the already existing increases in life expectancy.

However the main date for medical contributions is Pasteur's Germ Theory developed during the 1860s. After this people understood that infections were caused by germs and this rapidly led to ways to reduce infection. Lister pioneered antiseptic surgery using Carbolic Acid that started to gain wide use by the 1870s. Now these dates correlate exactly with the graph. So we can add these medical contributions to probable causes for increasing life expectancy.

But none of these medical advances had anything to do with Capitalism. Consider the British Lister Institute:

"Initial funding came from a variety of sources including philanthropic donations from individuals and trusts, as well as the provision of a site on the Chelsea Embankment by the Duke of Westminster. A major donation was also made by the Earl of Iveagh, head of the Guinness family, which enabled the Institute to develop operations, and underlies our long-standing close association with the Guinness family.

So yes it was the wealthy elite who funded this science, but it was through donations not through rewarding investors which is the key Capitalist doctrine. When Nationalisation took over the job of donations, democratic government and the tax payer replaced the need for a wealthy elite to fund things. Ever since then the Capitalists have been trying to replace tax donations with investment so that wealthy private individuals can get rich off dividends and continue the system of elite the Democratic Socialists almost got rid of. So Capitalism was completely not involved in any of this expanding of life span.

Another possible interpretation of this is simply food. People are better fed. Scientific revolutions in food production have started to eliminate food poverty. But this is not Capitalism either. If you look at Capitalisms contribution to food it has caused obesity, heart disease and a number of other diseases. It would be interesting to see how many years the Capitalist food industry has removed from our lives in fact.  

A much lauded stat is the global life expectancy. But this is all due to progress made in China. People in China are now better fed. That is worth looking at more closely and worth another blog.

Isn't it time we ended Capitalism? Even social mobility is worse.

https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/intergenerational-mobility-in-the-uk/

"National estimates of intergenerational earnings mobility

• Previous work has shown that intergenerational income mobility in England was lower for those born in 1970 than those born in 1958. Using administrative data on the most recent birth cohorts for whom earnings data are available, we find no evidence of recovery from that decline. National estimates of mobility of cohorts born in the late 1980s looks very similar to those of the 1970 cohort and education inequalities continue to be the dominant mediator.
• However, these estimates paint an incomplete picture for two reasons.

"

The researchers still can't believe it. Hoping that with a different method they will get the results they want. Why should Capitalism work? Its based upon a division between owners and non-owners where the owners are rewarded with rents and dividends that are paid them by the non-owners. How can any one in their wildest fantasies think this will lead to equality of any type? It is a society fundamentally divided at the most basic level. The only way to undo this is to either have everyone own everything (Democratic Socialism) or have no-one own anything (Anarchism). And the idea of Democratic Capitalism is an insult. Oh great I got a vote whoo hoo... tho I'd sell that any day for a £100 it is so utterly worthless.

Capitalism is a bit like a smoker who keeps ending up in hospital looking for treatment. When the thing itself is harmful nothing good will come from it. People are poorer, less socially mobile, society is fragmented, people are mentally ill, the planet is destroyed and we know we are subjected to over a century of total brainwashing to promote Capitalism and yet we still carry on smoking in the hope something good will come of it. Isn't it time just to quit now and pick up the healthy life that we already know deep down exists (despite Capitalist brainwashing that there is no other way than mad work and consumerism to generate profit - its the kind of mental abuse you get from a controlling partner: okay quit our relationship big shot but can you really live without me.. well yes we can because we were doing fine before you). #EndCapitalism

However ending capitalism is a quite complex cos it means unpacking the previous "Protestant Work Ethic" whereby work was seen as a religious offering. But of course "work" here did not mean the greedy self-centred mass consumption and accumulation of goods/bads it meant "good work" as in helping other people, and I think that implied without reward (so exchange was not a fundamental - central to modern criticisms of the false idea that money originated in barter - there is literally no actual evidence of this - barter is not, never was, an exchange system!!!! its a "mate I need a hand" system). And anyway obviously nothing belongs to us as it was all made by God, even our hands and talents are made by God and are gift given through His Grace. So work is a celebration of God's Gifts. This is the origin of Capitalism. But how Satan and Mammon have dragged us down and corrupted us since those lofty days! Henry VIII (aka Thomas Cromwell) is in large part responsible for triggering the transition to the "unholy works" of Capitalism and from them come the cess-pool of modern corrupted life.

Stanley Tucci: "Searching for Italy" is really just an Anti-Capitalism message to America

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11852724/

This is a really great show, but really all he is doing is cataloguing the benefits of never having Capitalism. You go anywhere in the world that does not have Capitalism and you get this. Italy clearly is full of people not interested in profit or progress but rather preserving those traditional age-old techniques and quality of their heritage that they have honed to perfection and they love. This is the opposite of Capitalism, which is all about disrupting and injecting new untested imperfect short-term things just for profit. So when Tucci writes home, just remind Americans this is what you can have if you get rid of Capitalism.

Interesting also that Italy side stepped Capitalism for Fascism. Fascism is the economic system of government monopolies. And doesn't that make sense: in a country with strong traditions where people already know how to do things and who is best don't you naturally just promote and protect monopolies (families) with the centuries of experience in producing what you love? Makes perfect sense.

And this raises the "racist" issue of cultural preservation. If you ever go to a country because you like it, what sense is there in taking your own traditions with you? If Italians want to preserve their food heritage its not just good enough to have government legislation to tackle food imposters you need the same with cultural imposters too. And you have Fascism immediately. Its not so simple though: cos immigrants will say well we have a right to our own culture. But saying that just empowers the Italian government to say the same. No simple solution! Easiest is just not go to Italy if you are not interested in being Italian. Capitalism of course just sees people as work-horses so they will import people without any regard for community or heritage: hence the "food issue" that Tucci is obliquely raising about the US. Its a melting pot of people bring half-remembered foods, without any infrastructure to make those foods, like 36 month Parmigiano-Reggiano, and no sufficient demand to warrant starting production - if they can remember, and when profit is the only thing on the table just make burgers. This is why the US is such a social car crash bottom of the table in almost all metrics.

When Tucci says "it was bombed" he means "The Americans bombed it." Why doesn't he say that? If the NAZIS or Russians had bombed it he would say that. The Yanks completely flattened Italy in a program of criminal vandalism (as they have large parts of the world) and then subjected the Italians to 20 years of total brainwashing through schools, radio, printed text and developing TV. You literally could not escape the voice of America in Italy after the war (so Italians tell me). So they forget the atrocities the US conducted on their soil.

But as, this show is testament to, it appears the Americans did not destroy Italy, and Italians still rejected Capitalism and kept their traditions. And I wonder if Americans watching this show will start to wonder why they have Capitalism and endless wars--to promote it to people who do not want it--too.

Novelty?

This has interested me from when I was very young. If we wish to be a success we need to be able to generate novelty. Essentially the same question as Creativity.

But how is this possible?

If someone plays us brand new music we will hate it.

But if someone plays us the same music all the time we will get bored.

Somewhere in the middle is Novelty.

Now this is interesting cos it means that Novelty is a mix of what we already know and the new material.

It means what is Novel to one person is not novel to another, because it depends upon the listener (not needing to split a listener into an individual or a society - an Indonesian will have more familiarity with Gamelan than an Eskimo, that's true for most Indonesians and Eskimos so any will do) .

It's conceivable that there are still people who do not know Electronic Dance Music, but unlikely cos since the 80s it has steadily grown to take a central place in Western mainstream culture. Even adverts consider it reaching target audiences it is so widely known.

But time was when the majority rejected it as repetitive, lacking a tune and even dismissed it as not even music.

So Novelty and Creativity is conditional on time and place. This is obvious: otherwise something would remain Novel forever! It must be novel and then while not itself changing become familiar as the world changes around it.

But at the same time, Novel things are not entirely built from the current conditions and the world around them. This is when things get boring and musicians just rework existing material with little novelty and new substance.

There is that sweet spot between the contemporary and the completely avant guarde which is Novel. Its actually directly linked to the nature of existence. We are all exactly in this sweet spot all the time: each day neither totally the same as the last nor totally different.