January 24, 2010

Haiti- Part 2

Already, a couple weeks after the humanitarian disaster triggered by the earthquake, the event has been thoroughly analyzed by the onlooking world, both mainstream, and 'alternative.' The mainstream view has been, as always, the superficial. Haiti was already desperately poor, thanks to a succession of corrupt governments that made self-seeking bad decisions, and left the multitudes in poverty and the infrastructure woefully inadequate. Nothing in there about how those governments attained power and were sustained by Western governments acting in their own interests and those of their multi-national surrogates. Just more of the 'blame the victim' mentality that the Zionist-run press constantly program us with.

The alternative media-- meaning virtually 100%, the Internet community-- were on top of the 'newspeak' babbling of the MSM (at least the sites I frequent). Yet, one suspects they are mostly preaching to the converted. The vast masses, who really need to hear and read the 'alternative view,' probably never bother to seek anything beyond what they are fed by the tri-literal, mega-media, propaganda outlets. I think the situation in Europe is somewhat better; some major TV stations and newspapers do broadcast stories that uncover some of the machinations of the hidden hands. For instance, the French have accused the US gov't of a military occupation of Haiti, under the pretext of delivering aid and security. This is probably accurate, tho it is vigorously denied by the American authorities.

From my point of view, what Haiti represents (besides a pitiful spectacle of human misery) is a glimpse into the future. If the future unfolds as some (including me) expect, we will experience a horrendous combination of 'Katrinas' and 'Haitis' in various parts of the world, including the rich, Western nations. Perhaps Haiti represents a worst-case scenario in some ways-- a country already poor, hence having very rudimentary physical and political infrastructure. Buildings that were constructed to withstand a hurricane were, ironically, not suited to survive a bad earthquake. Concrete structures with inadequate reinforcement crumbled with deadly results, killing and trapping their occupants. New Orleans, by contrast, was a modern city in the American idiom, yet it was devastated by wind and water. Clearly, nature has more than one way to deliver a knock-out blow to human habitations; relative protection against one, does not necessarily protect against another.

Viewing footage of Haiti, I couldn't help wondering what would happen if two or more disasters of that magnitude occurred simultaneously. We saw such an outpouring of compassion and generosity for Haiti, and before that, other similar events, because they allowed us to focus our emotions in a meaningful way for an identifiable and worthy cause. But, if several situations occurred at once, my suspicion is that the 'world community' would become overwhelmed, shocked into paralysis. We can all dig into our resources for one good cause a year, and feel satisfied. Maybe we could deal with two, stretch it to three, catastrophes in the span of a year. How would we cope with a cluster of catastrophes of the same, immense magnitude? How would we cope with the images of suffering? How would we react to the appeals for immediate relief? These are a few questions we may have to deal with in the near future. How many of us will think about them before they confront us?

No comments:

Post a Comment