Angelina Jolie says that she doesn't like Barack Obama. Neither do I.She says that Obama is a socialist. I say she's nuts. Nothing that man has ever done bears any relationship to socialism -- certainly not his Wall Street giveaways, certainly not his scheme to mandate payments to the health insurance parasites, and certainly not his non-stop efforts on behalf of unfettered free trade. (For more on that, scroll down a few posts or go here.) If Obama's a socialist, then so was Milton Friedman.
Angelina, we must assume, fancies herself a capitalist. Take a look at the sort of capitalist investment she favors: Dubai World.
I'm sure that you already know this morning's bad news about Dubai -- if not, see here and here. It is indeed Black Friday -- especially for some rather conscience-free Hollywood investors.
Keep in mind that Angelina Jolie put her money into Dubai World at a time when newspapers were filled with stories detailing how the modern Dubai "miracle" was built on slavery. An important article titled "Dubai: Land of Luxury, Land of Slavery" bears a telling subtitle: By investing in Dubai, celebrities are giving tacit approval to a hideous society and its obscene values.
Here are a few excerpts from that piece -- and if anyone out there can shove these words under the noses of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, I'd be grateful:
The question is: What in God's name are they doing there? Dubai is a slave society.
Whatever the law may say, there are whole areas of Dubai City given over to dozens of brothels where ten thousand women from Eastern Europe, the Far East, and Sub-Saharan Africa are held as sex slaves.
Some Dubai married men keep foreign sex slaves in special apartments popularly known as "shag pads." If a desperate captive woman flees, the "owner" - in an echo of the "runaway slave" advertisements in pre-Civil War USA - will run an "absconding servant" advertisement in Dubai newspapers.Gee -- and you were probably under the impression that Angelina cared about children. Naw. She doesn't give a shit about exploited kids. In fact, she tossed her money at the world's worst child abusers.
Foreign working men, if not exactly enslaved, are the next thing to it. The luxury hotels and apartments of Dubai where the celebrities live pampered lives are built by labourers (mostly from India) who are paid starvation wages - often months in arrears - amidst regular threats of violence.
Then there are the child slaves. Outside the city, there are farms where 6,000 boys, often kidnapped as babies, are held in bondage to serve as jockeys in the immensely popular camel races. They are frequently starved to keep their race weight down.
Protection for these grossly abused fellow humans is nonexistent. They don't seem to be viewed as humans at all. They are mere things to be used and discarded.
By the way, the above-quoted piece does not mention that the foreign workers brought into Dubai routinely have their passports taken away from them by their employers. Moreover, Dubai is one of the few countries which still maintains debtor prisons: If you can't make your mortgage payments, you go to jail.
I wonder if that law will apply to the rulers of the country?
Despite sovereign ownership of Dubai world, that country represents capitalism at its worst. Workers have no rights -- none. The entire country was founded on laundering money. The oligarchs running that hell-hole are ruthless exploiters, mafiosi in burnooses. Their current debacle demonstrates some important points about unfettered capitalism:
1. Without regulation, capitalist exploitation will devolve into slavery.
2. Without regulation, finance capitalists will always push leverage and other forms of financial trickery beyond the limits of their elasticity. Because a workforce kept at the subsistence level provides no foundation for true growth, the wheeler-dealers will resort to ever more elaborate maneuvers to keep the carousel spinning. Illusion will overpower economic reality -- for a while.
Dubai was oil-poor compared to its neighbors. Its growth was based not on anything real -- goods, services, resources -- but on tricks. Dubai was not so much a nation as a halluciNation.
Remember that Monty Python routine in which the Amazing Mystico uses hypnosis to erect apartment buildings? The buildings stay up only as long as everyone believes in them. The Amazing Mystico continued his adventures in architecture, and his crowning achievement was the Burj Tower. May it stay up forever, an unfinished mile-high haunted house exemplifying what happens when finance capitalism sheds the restraints of law and rationality.
By the way: Be glad you don't know me personally, because I'll probably spend the rest the rest of this day doing my Sling Blade impersonation: "Used to sleep with that there Angelina Jolie, mm-hmm. Can't do it no more, mm-hmm. Lost a whole buncha money she did, mm-hmm. Glad it weren't none a my money, mm-hmm..."
Additional note on the water problem. Many of Dubai's imported and exploited workers are kept in fetid concrete bunkers without air conditioning. They constitute a horrific humanitarian crisis.
The city has to ship in desalinated water – which is more costly than oil. When it runs out of cash, it will run out of water.You know damn well that the heartless emirates will simply let the riff-raff die of thirst in the desert. Will the rest of the world do anything to help?
20 comments:
It is hard to know what she said since it seems to be reported via an named source.
I have to say that Obama is remarkably difficult to pigeonhole. You can't quite say he is one way or the other. I still just think he is not experienced enough or naturally gifted enough to do whatever he is actually trying to do.
The truly scary idea is maybe he really does not have any idea what he actually wants to do and is just bluffing his way through all this.
To answer your final question: No.
Compassion is the scarcest resource on this planet, scarcer than oil, scarcer than water. Even though there should be an infinite supply of it, at least no upper bound.
Dubai - founded on laundering money...and also pearl diving, back before the oil started. And they used slaves for that too., who died early deaths because of the bends.
I've long wondered at the sense in building such facilities in the middle of a zone with its airspace dominated by the Israeli airforce and which, long before this depression started, could easily have had its attractiveness to rich foreign scumbag tourists destroyed by a single hour of aerial bombing by said airforce.
Deal?
I mean, there are other places in the world where it could have been done. Brazil, Australia, where have you.
Secret alliance?
Well, Zionist and Arab big-money interests cooperated in the huge Canary Wharf extension of London's financial district. No prizes for guessing which country the Arab interests owned, either.
As for Dubai, the place was set up by the Brits. Just like Brunei. It's Britain's answer to...well, Las Vegas comes to mind.
Cue the royals.
Dubai's one of the places where the Brit royals go 'off media' as soon as they arrive. (Saudi's another). Private business. Off home with you press johnnies.
Meanwhile the Makhtoums of Dubai are content to play second fiddle to the Brit royals in the part of the British gambling industry devoted to horse-racing. Which is still a major part, even in these days of online poker.
Several pages in most big national newspapers are devoted to the gee-gees. Including in the Times, Guardian, etc., I might add, for those who don't know already.
Go practically anywhere posh in Britain from a posh hospital to a posh hotel, and you're likely to overhear some rich fucker talk about his latest trip to Dubai and how much he enjoyed it.
There can hardly be even a medic or dentist in Britain who hasn't visited Dubai on an all-expenses-paid trip. No later embarrassment about the sex slaves, whether children or otherwise.
God, I hope the City of London gets embroiled in a big Dubai scandal. Brit (or Brit-based international) interests were heavily involved in Iceland too, but managed to distract attention.
Just listen to this fucker at HSBC, the Brit-based bank of which he's CEO. He's "confident that the leadership of Dubai and the UAE will overcome any short-term issues they face, which appear to have been somewhat sensationalised, and continue to lay the foundations for sustainable growth." Yeah right! ROFLMAO!
For years, Jolie was expected to play Dagny Taggart in a new production of "Atlas Shrugged".
Now, it looks as though Charlize Theron will play the part. I don't know about Theron's politics, so we'll have to see how she handles the character. Is America ready to sympathize with a soulless captain of industry? The new film is due to be released in 2011.
Jolie doesn't talk much about politics, as far as I know, but her father, Jon Voight, is an outspoken right winger.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Here's a philosophy for Jolie.....Karma-it's a bitch.
I never bought into her UN BS, but I also didn't realize that she had actually bought the wingnut propaganda put out on Obama-her idiocy knows no bounds.
Rumor has it that Voight and her have been hanging out more these days.
What's that saying...
the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
This does not surprise me one bit. Hollywood was also a big enabler of apartheid in South Africa. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
She's nuts. Doesn't know the difference between 'socialist' and 'corpofascist', and Daddy's GOP talk is just confusing her all the more.
O/T: Does anyone know what happened to OH BUMMER at their site http://obamboozled.blogspot.com???
It has disappeared today.
This was the BEST site for the O's scammy health care pro-insurance industry analysis and the culprits behind US jobs giveway to the third world.
Joseph,I agree with your comment that Jolie doesn't care about kids. While she goes around the globe adopting kids almost as fast as cats produce litters, what's wrong with adopting a poor black orphan from the slums of Detroit or Chicago?
Speaking of Detroit, same goes for Madonna. Why is it that these wildly overpaid entertainers shun the poor kids from our own country? It is just NOT COOL to want to help out their neighbors. So much for that BS about "think global act local."
@b
Dubai "dominated by Israeli airforce" ??? You must be kidding, not a single Israeli military plane, even civilian flies in that area. The air domination is US, UAE/Saudi and recently French uppgraded to nuke attack capability after opening a UAE airbase. If someone "threatens" Dubai airspace, it's the Iranians, but they'll rather launch SCUDSn since their outdated planes wouldn't even make it to the border. Check a map.
I'd take it with a grain of salt for the time being. I've met Jon Voight - he's obviously nuts from the get go. I mean, you know he's a lunatic from the point where he is 10 feet away from you. He's that nuts. It's obvious.
Now, Jolie, I've never heard a bad word about and I know several people who've worked with her. They aren't wingnuts and they aren't stupid. She's sensible, polite and hard working. No ego shenanigans on the set. Her lines are down cold, she's sober and works her ass off. Until you hear her say it directly, I'd assume it was bullshit.
leloup - sure, the Israelis don't fly over Dubai every day, but nor do they fly over Tunis or Iraq or Iran.
Thanks for the info about the French base in the UAE, which opened a few months ago. It does sound as though it's of some geopolitical importance. By 'dominated' by the Israeli airforce, I mean that the Israelis could bomb Dubai from the air whenever they want, as they have bombed say Tunis and Osiraq, without meeting any problem whatsoever from enemy defences or retaliation. That remains true. If they nuke Iran they might get problems, but those problems wouldn't include any from Iranian aircraft or missile defence. And Dubai is a different target from Iran. Sure, Dubai is now totally finished, but even several years ago, all it would have taken would have been a few missiles and its business would have gone for a burton.
The Saudi and UAE air forces and air defences are no match for the Israelis. Since there is so much British and US involvement in the Saudi airforce, the Saudi planes wouldn't get off the ground unless there was western say-so - they could be wiped out in a few hours by the Zionists, as the Egyptian airforce was in 1967. The UAE airforce is also controlled by the US.
According to the Washington Post, part of the reason for the friendship between the UAE and France is that the UAE sheikhs want to buy aircraft from elsewhere than the US, which is interesting in itself.
I note what you say about French nuke attack capability in the region. Who knows, while people have been wondering whether it will be the Zionists or their transatlantic lackeys who will nuke Iran, but maybe 'Sarko the sayan' from the Elysée will help too?
Joe: I assume you are trying to drive viewership to your site by naming Angelina Jolie in your post. And, I hate that you are making me defend a superstar who needs no defending from a barely-read blogger. But, I mean - come on. You are siting a "source" from US WEEKLY! to disparage Jolie as if it came from her own lips. Could you be more of a tool. The same US Weekly who has had her and Pitt breaking up a few dozen times now, them adopting yet another child, her pregnant again about 5 times, etc. etc. You see where I am going with this, right?
You call "conspiracy theorists" nuts (which many of them are), but then you use nothing more than second-hand gossip from no better than a slightly up-market tabloid to insult someone you do not know.
By the way - her father is a rightwinger, and she has also been estranged from him for years. Correlated - I don't know. But, there is a reason she doesn't trust him. And, maybe she doesn't trust Obama. Neither do you. But, we have no reason to know if she does or doesn't and if she doesn't trust him why. May be for the same reason as you, and someone just simply made up the "Socialist" line because it sounded better to get themselves quoted in a tabloid.
Secondly, Alphaville is wrong about Jolie investing in Dubai. They just saw Pitt having bought and attributed it to both of them. It was rare, but shoddy journalism on behalf of FT. They didn't look at the dates he bought, but I did. Pitt bought property there in 2002. That was when he was still married to J. Aniston. He was married to Aniston until 2005. It is very likely he didn't even know he was buying property there, and his financial manager just bought it up as part of his portfolio. Still his responsibility of course, but the point is he bought 3 years before he got together with Jolie, and at least a year before he even met her.
Why not attribute the purchase to J. Aniston?? Or, more accurately to Pitt - the man - and the one who actually made the decision. Either it's sexism on your part to just believe awful things about a beautiful woman without bothering to do basic checking or you think Jolie will drive more viewers to your site than even Pitt or Aniston.
Either way - shoddy, shoddy, shoddy.
In fact - I will donate $100 to your site if you can back up the comments you made about Jolie with facts. If you can't then you owe her an apology.
I got the "socialist" quote from NY Daily News. But as I understand it, if the quote is fake and therefore actionable, both the NYDN and US Weekly are potentially liable.
Tell you what, Marie -- let's see if Angelina Jolie sues. The publications in question have sufficient pocket depth to be worth suing. And if you are correct, then her motive for bringing suit would be better than Carol Burnett's motive for suing the National Enquirer back in the 1970s.
I talked once to a guy who had worked for the Enquirer, and he assured me that that famous case (and a few others) DID spook them. A disgusting tabloid rag may be a disgusting tabloid rag, but they are in business to make money and they dislike going to court.
Printing badly-sourced piffle about relationships is one thing. But if you read even the worst of the tabs carefully, you'll note that they usually refrain from making up false and actionable words and placing them into the mouth of someone who possesses the means to retaliate legally. That's a line most would fear to cross.
Now, I'm not saying that such a thing is impossible. You may be right. The quote may well be false. Jolie may issue a statement claiming that the "Obama as socialist" quote (which was picked up by quite a few outlets) was a lie.
But she has not issued a statement like that, has she? At least not yet.
As for FT -- well, I should have thought that their standards were rather higher than you propose. May I ask where you got your information? Again, you may be right, but I would like to double-check.
A few other things: Next time you write in, for any reason, you may not insult me, even if I deserve it. Unfair? Maybe. But as I've said many times, I'm not paid for this gig. If I allow one insult, even from an intelligent reader such as yourself, then the days will return when dozens of "Cannon is a poopy-head" messages wait for me every time I fire up my blog.
And that brings us to an important point. I never do ANYTHING to drive up readership. I have asked all sites linking to this blog to de-list it. I have turned down all requests to appear on the radio or to lecture.
If popularity were the goal, this blog would have been all about bombs-in-the-buildings throughout 2006-2007 -- and in 2008 it would have printed lots of adulatory posts about Our Glorious Lightbringer.
To be frank, the unhappy experience of those days taught me to despise many of my readers. To be even franker, I tend to despise people in general. I write to write, not to be read.
Are we clear on that?
A couple of further points:
I may have accidentally rejected a comment which linked to a story indicating that Pitt and Jolie have purchased an island off of Dubai.
Also, the US Weekly story does NOT quote Jolie directly. It quotes a "source" allegedly close to her. Is that still actionable? Maybe.
The two pieces from M W and the NYT were written like someone there has money in Dubai World. whistling in the dark.
Joe: This is getting silly. You are now claiming that because Jolie doesn't either come out with a comment disputing an anonymous source in US Weekly (and that's the original - which NY Daily News and probably a lot of other worthless "journals" plagarized from) or SUE them, then it's true???!!
You seem to have connections in Hollywood or LA media land. You surely know as much as I do that stars in the US almost NEVER sue tabloids no matter what, given US libel law. Maybe in the UK, but it doesn't even make sense to say - well why don't they sue if it's not true - given US libel laws.
Also, Jolie probably either hasn't even heard about it - after all it came out over Thanksgiving weekend, and most sane people who have families in the US are not glued to internet gossip/news - or could care less. As I mentioned, it certainly would be far from the first lie told about her and if she was going to spend all her time refuting anonymous gossip in tabloids, she wouldn't do anything else. Even if it's something about Obama. All she has to do is call Obama up and say - hey - not true. No reason to dignify a tabloid with a statement just to please us.
And, I'm not saying the story isn't true. I don't know; I doubt it given that it doesn't sound like her to even say something like "Obama's a socialist." But, we don't know whether she said it or not.
Frankly, my point here has not got to do with Jolie, really, who certainly can defend herself but with you, Joe. You are usually better than this. I mean - accusing someone of endorsing slavery is a pretty serious charge. I would want you to maybe look a little deeper into the evidence before doing that.
I also would want you to have BRAD PITT's name front and center too. He bought the property - I still have not seen anything saying that the Dubai property deed was after 2002 - long before he met Jolie. But, even if they bought it together, where's HIS name??????
Et tu, Brute?
I hadn't heard of this Jolie before I came here, and don't intend to read up on her now. The hell with Hollywood and its stars.
To get back to Dubai.
Further financial crashes on Monday look likely.
Abu Dhabi bailed out Barclay's Bank last year, the same time the British government bailed out Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Now they're getting out, presumably to cover the hole in their finances now their other big debtor Dubai is in trouble.
Banks taking emergency measures in this climate raises the possibility of massive markdowns and defaults - as the whole pyramid of debt on which the western economy has been built for the last 20 years capsizes.
I liked the story that to pay its debts, Dubai had to sell two properties in London for £10m which it bought for £90m. We'll be hearing a lot more stories like that, with more zeroes on the end.
The issue of how all that highly bomb-sensitive investment came to be made in the Gulf in the first place continues to interest me. The guy who's been "asked" to help Dubai sell off its assets is from none other than...Rothschilds.
Funny, that's the same bank that steps in when Iceland gets in trouble, or interests in Siberia.
Since the early 1970s, the Arab (and Persian) sheikhs have been allowed to get very rich, swan about in London spending millions on their luxury consumption, buy up properties in Kensington Palace Gardens, etc. But clearly there was a limit.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Rothschild was one of five banks working in recent months to help Dubai World "meet its debt obligations". The others were Deutsche Bank, Citibank, JP Morgan and the Dubai Islamic Bank. But last week they were all "stood down", and now it's Rothschilds and the accountants at Deloitte who are, er, "advising on the sale of assets".
Do we actually think Abu Dhabi's going to step in and buy all this shit with their own money?
By the way, anyone who likes stories about aliens should check out what's going on in Bulgaria. Members of the elite seem to be accusing each other left, right, and centre. Now that's the kind of thing I like! Wouldn't surprise me if Bulgaria does an Iceland next week.
Marie, you still haven't told me how you know what you know about the Pit/Jolie finances. All I know is that neither the FT nor the SF Gate published a retraction. And I'm going to either, based purely on assertions from someone named "Marie" whom I do not know personally.
I didn't focus on Brad Pitt because didn't buy into the Obama-as-socialist meme, which I've spent a great deal of time trying to combat. Also, it really is remarkable for two major periodicals to assert that someone with Jolie's rep has invested in a country where child slavery is institutionalized.
And yeah, I see no reason -- so far -- to doubt the "socialist" story. There have been no denials, and I know that even a magazine like US is chary of libel suits.
Well, well. Don't know about general viewership, but you seem to have driven mpre of a certain kind of viewer/commenter here, judging from the two Zionist-sniffing "Jew bankers rule the world" nutcases who unfortunately are spewing their tiresome spiels. It's amusing that they accuse you of bandying Angelina's name in order to attract people, when in fact it was the mention of Dubai which set the Zionist-sniffers on your trail. Despite that, thanks for the spotlight on the slavery there. Much needed.
Post a Comment