Questions About Burma / Myanmar

Questions About Burma / Myanmar

Right now we are all hip deep in Propaganda being circulated by agents for the Multi-National Corporations and their Dupes who wish to take over old Burma, just the same as they have taken over everywhere else. There are some questions they are not asking.

Why do they call it a Pro-Democracy Movement when what triggered it were increases in fuel prices? It seems that the Monks, who live by begging, were caught in a crunch when most people, squeezed by doubled fuel costs, could no longer afford to give the Monks their accustomed hand-outs. If the Generals had dropped fuel prices back to normal, then it seems that the Monks would have been fine and dandy with the Junta. So why are they all suddenly “Pro-Democracy Demonstrators”?

The Junta is blamed for anti-ethnic crack-downs. Okay. Well, who started it? Since the Media is fixated on telling us everything BAD they can find out, it seems that the Junta may well have been the original victims of Ethnic Violence, since it has not been pointed out that they were the instigators. What I envision is that at the onset of Burmese Independence, after the Japanese were ejected out of Burma at the close of the War, some nasty little Ethnic Minority began a Terror Campaign so they could start up their own little Country, so a small select cadre of Bandits could milk this territory for its tax revenues and exploit the so many opportunities for corruption that a little Independent Political Jurisdiction could provide. Well, it may seem a good idea to allow for millions of individual little countries; however, History shows us that the most Peace and Prosperity result from the largest of possible consolidations of Political Jurisdiction – Empires tend to do better over all than little Countries that, just as we see, get caught up in War, and suffer from having stilted little inherently limited currencies and economies. So, it does no tiny little Ethnic Group any favor by allowing their Bandit Chieftains opportunities for corruption by declaring them their own Nation, as they would be better off in a more Collective Grouping. And if they should rise up murderously, the Bandits I mean, especially to reject the old established Political Groupings, why should we think it a bad thing for the Preferred Larger Organization to defend itself? Civilization should always be allowed to defend against Barbarian Aggression, even if it does pit Big against Little. Do we not all slap mosquitoes? So why is it not asked whether the Junta may be the good guys here?

Let us look a bit at what we know of the History here. Years ago the Generals allowed for an Election which they lost to some celebrated Woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, who is now acclaimed for being the Leader of the Pro-Democracy Movement. Well, it should be the first obvious question, but it is never asked, concerning what policies she would implement if she were actually given Executive Control of the Burmese Government. It would seem to me that the Generals had been dealing in good faith, to allow for Elections, but since they seem to know something that nobody is telling any of us, they saw that the Burmese People had been terribly unwise for electing this Woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, and were allowing for something of some Terrible Revolution which the Generals, in good conscience, could not allow. We might compare this to a situation that could even occur in America, if, lets say, the Anarchist Libertarian Party were to win General Elections on the explicit Platform of dismantling the Federal Government and effectively allowing for Chaos to Run Riot. Now, we need to confess that while we speak of Democracy in terms of Winners and Losers, still, it is not just some Game, and we have to allow that not all results can be in good conscience permitted. Even in America we saw the intervention of their Supreme Court to place a losing Republican in office over a winning Democrat, and this was not even over issues promising to destroy all law and order (indeed, isn’t it the Democrats who are FOR some degree of Regulation, and the Republicans rather closer to the philosophies of Anarchy?). Anyway, while they can only describe this Woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, as “Pro-Democracy”, while omitting to tell us what her actual political aims are, we should resent being asked to rally behind her. And we might consider that the Generals would know her better than we do.

You know, the American State Department had described the first embryonic clashes of China’s infamous Cultural Revolution as “Pro-Democracy”. When such Rebellions fail, they are forever classified as Martyred Pro-Democracy ‘Peaceful Demonstrations’. Of course, when such Rebellions succeed and we discover that they had only been vehicles for even worse forms Tyranny and Corruption, then History is swiftly revised. It seems that Propaganda, while being opportunistic, does not hold itself to being consistent.

It seems that any enemy to an American Enemy is their Friend. Any time anybody causes trouble and instability in the World, giving opportunity for the America’s Multi-National Corporations to come in to clean up the pieces, then it is labeled “Pro-Democracy”. Exxon Oil only wants us all to be free. Yeah, right.

Oh, and perhaps we should review exactly what is a Peaceful Demonstration? Is it really a Peaceful Demonstration when a Capital City is shut down and all Offices of Government are taken over? Again, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was ‘peaceful’ until the very moment when they captured every office of Government and then unleashed their Reign of Terror. 20 Million were murdered in the wake of that Peaceful Demonstration.

America itself once had such a dilemma on their hands. After World War One, the veteran soldiers were upset that their pensions were so low at the same time as the Prohibition Laws forbade them the solace of getting Drunk about it, and so they marched upon Washington, the American Capitol. It was ‘peaceful’ but when it appeared that there were sufficient demonstrators available to overrun every Government Building and effectively pull-off a successful Coup, destroying the Federal Government if that had suddenly become their whim, then the Army was mobilized to defend the Nation against this likely seizure of their Government. America, who now shakes a finger at the Burmese Generals, and shakes a finger at the Chinese after Tiananmen Square, they had not been the least bit squeamish about charging the Cavalry into the Veterans Tent City. And I do not blame them for what they did then, but only for this later hypocrisy and convenient forgetfulness. One cannot allow the Fate of a Government to hang upon the whims of the Mob – and anytime you have a few hundred thousand people in the same room, I’m sorry, but that’s a ‘Mob’. We can count upon such Mobs to be ‘peaceful’ only until their violence becomes legendary. Again we can remember the Peaceful French Revolution, the Peaceful Russian Revolution, the Peaceful Chinese Revolution. Even the Peaceful American Revolution that murdered 3,000 British Peace Keepers at Bunker Hill.

Remember Gandhi who has been made something of the Modern Apostle for Peaceful Resistance. They led to the Wars of Partition. More people died in them than in the Nazi Holocaust. That’s how Peaceful these Demonstrations are.

Now, if the Generals of Myanmar are only trying to save their Nation from being one more instance of tragedy on this long list of Reigns of Popular Terror, then we need to ask why the Media is unreflectively casting them as the Bad Guys. We need to ask ourselves who the Media is taking their orders from?