Back in the Spring I was working on a collection of historical events little discussed these days but was the basis of the early wealth of certain New England families who involved themselves in the opium trade, slave trade and in the late colonial period of our Republic, the development of King Cotton and the Civil War. What follows was intended to be a starting point of that account but it looks like while explaining the ‘lust for control’ I lost the trail and this beginning sat waiting patiently for the story to be picked up again. It will be but not today. The best this will do is to serve as a reminder that the pleas from the ‘deplorables’ to ‘Lock Her Up, Lock Her Up’ was its own purpose. There was no real intent to lock her up. The lock up is reserved for the ‘deplorables’.
Besides, the power elite will never have to chant their wishes; all they have to do is send one of their people to the DNC with instructions.
It, as described by a top EU official, is the start of the process of accountability.
Whaaatt?
…Even if Mr. Putin is only ever the subject of an arrest warrant, Mr. Koh said, it still serves an important purpose. It further isolates Mr. Putin and further restricts his ability to travel abroad. It also potentially deters China from giving Russia weapons, sends a message to others in the Russian bureaucracy and might reduce resistance inside the Pentagon to sharing evidence with the court…
It appears to me that we are getting to the nut of the issue, of every issue in fact; control is what the wannabe rulers of the world lust after; complete control. How better to achieve awareness of the need for power enough to control everyone than to control a rogue leader who declared his Nationalist beliefs at the beginning of this farce in order to gain the control of the willing captives of the World Health Law?
Earlier attempts to gain power through control and have failed are documented in a work titled “The Cotton and Commerce of India, considered in relation to THE INTERESTS OF GREAT BRITAIN; with REMARKS ON RAILWAY COMMUNICATION in the Bombay Presidency written by John Chapman
…To these difficulties we have to add that of the Government becoming not an impartial judge amongst all rights. Once pledged and interested, how is it to look with equal favour on that which may seem, without touching the rights of its ndopted , to thirenten its profits ? And yet how often does it happen, that either others must not be permitted to jostle, in fair rivalry, with those whom the Government had promised to fuvour, and sometimes with the establishments of the Government itself, or there must be a denial of the plainest rights of enterpriso, and the sacrifice of public interests, as soon by the better light of new events ‘. In truth , as soon as a government censes to confine itself to rights, and begins to meddle with profits, it commonly loses the reputation, the coolness and the impartiality, of an umpire, and becomes involved as party, either by interest or feeling, in the complicated questions to which rivalry of enterprise always gives birth .
If those practical disadvantages attach themselves to Govern ment management and control, when even the same persons remain in office, what may they not become when changes take place – changes which originate, perhaps, as far as the limits of human pursuits permit, from the industrial objects and interests affected by them? A railway or a dock was, say yesterday, in the hands of a government, who had adopted, in respect of it, a certain set of views, and a corresponding course of policy ; to-day anything, from a backstair intrigue or a blunder of some far-off ambassador or consul, to a rejection of the budget, turus out the ministry; the railway or dock must wait until it can be attended to, and then it is set a – going again on a new set of notions. How, in the face of these risks, that unity and persistence of purpose, that consistenoy of detail, that harmony of operation, and that unohilled interest in the object, can be maintained, which are essential to industrial success, seems as much past our power to conjecture, as it is past that of experience and examples to show .
The answer commonly given to such remarks as the above, is, “constitute a government department for the purpose.” But here, again, we have only a choice of evils, and those of both sides inadmissible. If such a department be under the effective control of the heads of the government, it must partake of all the disadvantages which have already been described – the delays and the incertitude of government action; nor does it seem possible that the most gigantio and unwearied intellects, oocupied imperatively with the multifarious concerns of a diligent and effective government, should preserve continuity of recollection and permanence of purpose enough, to dictate with effect even the general measures to be taken in the various stages of industrial affairs …”
A remarkable instance of the effect of this tendency is given in the following oxtract, from tho Reports and Documents, of 1880, pngo 4. It will bo observed, that the recommendation of the Bombay Government of that day was orerruled by the Court of Directors, of whose letter, dated 1st of January, 1789, the following is part: “ As the standard you mention to have adopted (that of the compression of cotton for shipment), very considerably exceeds the measurement stated in our former letter, which we have reason to think is tolerably accurate, we must desire that this subject may be again taken under consideration, and that you ascertain, with the utmost degree of care and attention, the smallest possible dimensions to which a bale of cotton is capable of being compressed by the Company’s screws; and if, after so doing, it shall nppear that the new standard dimensions are not capable of being diminished, you must endeavour to ascertain whether the cause is to be attributed to any defect in the principle on which the Company’s screws are constructed, or whether they require the aid of any mechanical improvements, to give them the powers which they are not at present possessed of. “If individuals, either by superior industry, or the application of powers better adapted to the end proposed, have been enabled to accomplish so material an advantage as the difference thus gained in point of tonnage, provided there were no other objections to the measure, this alone would be sufficient to prevent our complying with the request contained in your public letter, for the suppressing of private scretos, and confining the merchants to the use of the Company’s screws only.”