John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GODFREE ROBERTS IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Last Man Standing
“China Wins Big with Covid-19. What Were We Thinking?”
I certainly was among the suspicious concerning a bio-weapon.
The quality and attitudes of America’s leadership today make that not unthinkable at all, which is part of the reason so many have written articles suggesting the possibility, or even likelihood.
While ready to accept any facts that emerge, I am beginning to think otherwise.
First, Italian doctors last year appear to have discovered the same thing as the Chinese, an unusual cluster of pneumonia-like cases.
They are beginning to think now that the cases were actually the coronavirus.
Two, a number of serious experts have suggested we have most of our numbers wrong.
The infection, it is suggested, rolled through European and American populations a while ago.
But because, for most people, the infection is so mild, even free of symptoms, all numbers on total infections everywhere are likely wildly off on the low side.
Of course, if that's the case, the death rate for this thing is actually extremely low and does not warrant extreme measures, and our political leaders have acted on the basis of terrible data.
I don't know. It all represents quite a nightmare.
It didn’t help that this disease was discovered in China, the target of immense hostilities and resentments in America.
The President of the US and, especially, his Secretary of State, a genuinely despicable man, have made the most shameful statements.
Just beyond common decency.
But where’s the decency left in a country that severely sanctions the innocent populations of Venezuela and Iran? That attends to killing people in a half dozen other places? And that supports bloody tyrants in a number of countries?
There is no pity and no soul which appear to remain.
I note a number of analysts are saying that China’s demonstrated ability to get through the virus infection in such a well-organized fashion, showing the world its ability to successfully marshal its resources for anything, only strengthens China’s position relative to the US and hastens the day, not far away in any case, when China surpasses the US as the world’s dominant economy.
The US has both an economic and a financial crisis, and those are on top of a mountain of pre-existing debt that they now are only going to increase massively.
I can’t help remembering, watching the US reactions to all the events, “How the Mighty have fallen.”
Thursday, March 26, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA AND CORONAVIRUS – THE POSSIBILITY OF A BIO-WEAPON HAVING BEEN USED – NEW INFORMATION SUGGESTS OTHERWISE – THE IMMENSE HOSTILITY TOWARDS CHINA AMERICA HAS NEEDLESSLY GENERATED – CHINA’S COMING DOMINANCE HAS BEEN ENHANCED BY THE CRISIS - AMERICA’S TERRIBLE SITUATION AND EMPTY POLICIES AND ITS SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE
Monday, March 23, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: INTERVIEW WITH A WORLD-CLASS VIROLOGIST ON CORONAVIRUS – GOVERNMENT OVERREACTION AND HYSTERIA – BUT IT IS UNAVOIDABLE GIVEN THE NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENTS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN ANTI-EMPIRE
A world-class virologist discusses Coronavirus - the problems we are stuck with by our governments’ hysteria
https://www.anti-empire.com/german-virologist-of-international-renown-warns-government-lockdowns-are-a-horrible-mistake-will-make-crisis-worse/#disqus_thread
This is a terrific interview, the voice of a wise person who is also a true expert.
Days ago, I posted a link for another brief interview from a world-famous Israeli virologist who said most people who get this virus will not even know they're infected. Very mild infection for most people.
However, we cannot wish for the world in which we want to live.
We are all stuck in a set of harsh political realities from which we cannot escape. See my comment on the previous story about how governments make decisions, "The Hysteria Pandemic."
Oh, I'll just post it here, too, below:
I, and I'm sure other readers, feel the same about America's insane war policies and spending a trillion dollars a year on killing and the means to kill.
_______________________
"Government officials make decisions based primarily on political calculation."
That is just one of the classic flaws with any kind of democratic government.
We do not even have democracy, but we sure have some of worst features.
There's no cure for it. Enlightened despots have long been admired by some historians and philosophers, but what assurance does anyone have that a person given vast powers will behave in an enlightened way?
You do not have any. A Putin, an Elizabeth I are very rare persons.
Churchill said it best - as he often did – “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN ANTI-EMPIRE
A world-class virologist discusses Coronavirus - the problems we are stuck with by our governments’ hysteria
https://www.anti-empire.com/german-virologist-of-international-renown-warns-government-lockdowns-are-a-horrible-mistake-will-make-crisis-worse/#disqus_thread
This is a terrific interview, the voice of a wise person who is also a true expert.
Days ago, I posted a link for another brief interview from a world-famous Israeli virologist who said most people who get this virus will not even know they're infected. Very mild infection for most people.
However, we cannot wish for the world in which we want to live.
We are all stuck in a set of harsh political realities from which we cannot escape. See my comment on the previous story about how governments make decisions, "The Hysteria Pandemic."
Oh, I'll just post it here, too, below:
I, and I'm sure other readers, feel the same about America's insane war policies and spending a trillion dollars a year on killing and the means to kill.
_______________________
"Government officials make decisions based primarily on political calculation."
That is just one of the classic flaws with any kind of democratic government.
We do not even have democracy, but we sure have some of worst features.
There's no cure for it. Enlightened despots have long been admired by some historians and philosophers, but what assurance does anyone have that a person given vast powers will behave in an enlightened way?
You do not have any. A Putin, an Elizabeth I are very rare persons.
Churchill said it best - as he often did – “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AN AUTHOR REGRETS HOW PEOPLE GIVE UP FREEDOMS IN THE NAME OF (WHAT HE REGARDS AS A NOT VERY DANGEROUS) PANDEMIC – BUT PEOPLE FOR THE MOST PART HAVE NEVER BEEN INDIVIDUALISTS – THERE IS MOSTLY HERD BEHAVIOR – A WORD ON MILITARY HIERARCHIES - OUR ANCIENT ANCESTORS AND OUR RELATIVES THE CHIMPS – A SPECULATION ON WHERE HUMAN EVOLUTION IS HEADED
John Chuckman
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN ANTI-EMPIRE
“Terrified of COVID-19?”
“It’s just going to get worse. we can’t even begin to imagine what is in store for us. Meanwhile, the herd will beg for more.”
Sorry, I think you have fantasies about humanity.
Nobel individuals standing up for themselves? Perhaps, Marko, you read too much Ayn Rand?
Humanity is, and always has been, much like a herd.
The apes we're descended from lived in tribal groups with sets of rules, just as chimps do today.
And they've even discovered that those chimp tribal groups periodically go off to attack a neighboring chimp tribal group, and do so quite viciously.
Does that sound familiar?
_____________________________
Response to a reader who said, “Evolution still has a LONG way to go.”
Evolution is headed, and rather rapidly, towards artificial intelligence and robots.
They are the ones who will travel to the stars.
Our herd will be regarded as we do monkeys.
I believe in the search for other intelligent life in the universe - and absolutely it is there abundantly - the planets that really are advanced are likely robotic and have little or no interest in communicating with us.
That would explain the lack of signals despite years of effort looking.
There may be is only a relatively brief window in time when an evolving species such as ours is capable and interested in communicating.
For most of humanity's 200,000 years, we've had no ability.
And perhaps in another century, our successors, the robots, will have no interest.
The universe appears to have a "destiny" towards self-understanding, given the way evolution works and the way the earth keeps a record of its own history through fossils and geology.
Intelligence is the "arrow of time" in evolution, and robots can before a very long time far exceed us.
After all, we've been 200,000 years just about right where we are but learning over that period how to do things.
That effort to learn how to do things will continue, but human capacity will be inadequate to the need. Our successors will carry on, even periodically building more intelligent generations of themselves.
Regarding other civilizations in the universe, it is of course possible that in the "transition phase" in which we find ourselves, many perhaps destroy themselves with nuclear war and other severe perils.
Weapons too grave for monkey brains.
Readers might enjoy:
https://chuckmanrobots.blogspot.com/
_______________________
Response to a reader saying, “It is truly terrifying to watch how the sheep have acquiesced in their own enslavement”
Hardly more terrifying than the destructive stupidities of WW I and WW II and Vietnam and the Neocon Wars.
An immense amount of resources and effort dedicated solely to killing many, many millions of people and destroying many, many things.
And, of course, what is the social order which directs all of that activity?
A pyramidal hierarchy just like ancient Egypt.
That's the only way militaries ever function.
You find no Ayn Rand types ever functioning in a military. Nor any Mozarts or Bachs. They are outliers in terms of their genetic make-up.
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN ANTI-EMPIRE
“Terrified of COVID-19?”
“It’s just going to get worse. we can’t even begin to imagine what is in store for us. Meanwhile, the herd will beg for more.”
Sorry, I think you have fantasies about humanity.
Nobel individuals standing up for themselves? Perhaps, Marko, you read too much Ayn Rand?
Humanity is, and always has been, much like a herd.
The apes we're descended from lived in tribal groups with sets of rules, just as chimps do today.
And they've even discovered that those chimp tribal groups periodically go off to attack a neighboring chimp tribal group, and do so quite viciously.
Does that sound familiar?
_____________________________
Response to a reader who said, “Evolution still has a LONG way to go.”
Evolution is headed, and rather rapidly, towards artificial intelligence and robots.
They are the ones who will travel to the stars.
Our herd will be regarded as we do monkeys.
I believe in the search for other intelligent life in the universe - and absolutely it is there abundantly - the planets that really are advanced are likely robotic and have little or no interest in communicating with us.
That would explain the lack of signals despite years of effort looking.
There may be is only a relatively brief window in time when an evolving species such as ours is capable and interested in communicating.
For most of humanity's 200,000 years, we've had no ability.
And perhaps in another century, our successors, the robots, will have no interest.
The universe appears to have a "destiny" towards self-understanding, given the way evolution works and the way the earth keeps a record of its own history through fossils and geology.
Intelligence is the "arrow of time" in evolution, and robots can before a very long time far exceed us.
After all, we've been 200,000 years just about right where we are but learning over that period how to do things.
That effort to learn how to do things will continue, but human capacity will be inadequate to the need. Our successors will carry on, even periodically building more intelligent generations of themselves.
Regarding other civilizations in the universe, it is of course possible that in the "transition phase" in which we find ourselves, many perhaps destroy themselves with nuclear war and other severe perils.
Weapons too grave for monkey brains.
Readers might enjoy:
https://chuckmanrobots.blogspot.com/
_______________________
Response to a reader saying, “It is truly terrifying to watch how the sheep have acquiesced in their own enslavement”
Hardly more terrifying than the destructive stupidities of WW I and WW II and Vietnam and the Neocon Wars.
An immense amount of resources and effort dedicated solely to killing many, many millions of people and destroying many, many things.
And, of course, what is the social order which directs all of that activity?
A pyramidal hierarchy just like ancient Egypt.
That's the only way militaries ever function.
You find no Ayn Rand types ever functioning in a military. Nor any Mozarts or Bachs. They are outliers in terms of their genetic make-up.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WHY THE IDEA OF A VIABLE THIRD PARTY IN AMERICA IS A FLIGHT OF FANCY – AMERICA’S CURRENT PLUTOCRATIC STRUCTURE AND WHAT KEEPS IT IN PLACE – THE DARK UNDERSIDE OF AMERICAN POLITICS – VOTER CHOICE? DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IDENTICAL ON THE MILITARY/SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT AND ITS ROLE IN GLOBAL EMPIRE AND BIG DOMESTIC SOCIAL PROGRAMS IMPOSSIBLE
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI
“A Tale of Two Foreign Policies: The Train-Wreck Abroad Is Bipartisan”
_____________________
Response to a comment saying, “I’ll get you a real third party. We only have one anyway. The property party with two right wings. If our people can return their faith to the source of everything good in our lives, then the notion of the two artificially combating parties will disappear. It’s time to send them both home. And end the show in Washington”
Sorry, but that is dreaming in technicolor.
The fact is the US is pretty much a plutocracy now, and the two parties are heavily supported by that plutocracy.
You cannot even sit down at the card table without a huge stake.
It's what we call in economics, a barrier to entry.
The many quasi-monopolies and duopolies we see in our economy work the same way, as with gigantic advertising budgets a newcomer cannot hope to match.
A few facts on America's plutocracy.
The Supreme Court decision that "money is free speech."
Hillary Clinton burned through 1.2 billion dollars in just one campaign for one person.
Mike Bloomberg spent about $900 million on his recent brief effort for the nomination.
In practical terms, there are no limits on political spending and donating.
And there are no real limits on the work of lobbies for private and special interests.
It has become a standing joke that America has "the best Congress money can buy."
America's Frankenstein military/security apparatus is not about defense, at all. It is about the maintenance of global empire. It burns through a trillion dollars a year, and it exists to serve America's plutocracy and its establishment.
The American tax structure has become terribly bent. It is helping to generate huge disparities, the so-called "one percent", and support plutocracy.
The main difference between the two parties is the Democrats talk about various domestic social measures.
In all other respects, the parties are identical – in support for the Pentagon/security establishment, support for global empire, and support for almost continuous wars and coups, and both depend on plutocracy for a flow of funds. Voters get no choice at all in such matters.
And the irony for the Democrats is that so long as America burns through a trillion dollars a year for supporting empire – money it doesn’t even have, all borrowed – none of the large social programs can possibly happen.
And who do you think ends up paying for all the interest on all that immense borrowing? It sure ain’t the plutocrats that its expenditure served.
America’s political system is pretty much a rigged game. There’s no serious chance of changing it either, although a catastrophe like we’re now headed into could do that. But they are already talking in Washington of suspending habeas corpus and about which Pentagon general might step in.
Tulsi Gabbard wasn’t even allowed to compete because she questions the wars.
Bernie Sanders has been cheated a second time. He really isn’t a socialist, he’s an FDR progressive. But his being cheated twice by elaborate measures is the perfect example of how risk-averse America’s establishment is.
It ain’t a pretty picture, and the reality always gives me a little chuckle when I read of American officials telling others abroad how they should do things.
By the way, that vast expenditure on empire also gets in the way of improving America’s infrastructure – from schools to bridges.
The genuine way to compete with China is not Trump’s noise and threats and tariffs, it is old-fashioned getting down to work and improving your competitiveness, but America’s establishment isn’t the least interested in doing that. It feels entitled to be number one in everything, and so it just demands it. It’s what Putin accurately describes as “a sense of entitlement.”
In the end, it will get America nowhere, except into trouble. The American Dream was the simple result of having been the last industrial power standing after WWII and having invested heavily for the war.
But those conditions and that era are gone, for good. Others have invested and worked hard, and they do many things better than America does.
After all, do we not see throughout our lives the rise and fall of great firms, of great families? It is no different with empire.
America has been declining in relative terms in the world economy for decades. It is just the way things work. You cannot bully your way back, either, like the big bully in the White House thinks you can.
Pursuing that course is almost certainly going lead to war, and I can’t imagine that any sane person wants that, but to call some leaders in Washington sane is seriously stretching truth.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI
“A Tale of Two Foreign Policies: The Train-Wreck Abroad Is Bipartisan”
_____________________
Response to a comment saying, “I’ll get you a real third party. We only have one anyway. The property party with two right wings. If our people can return their faith to the source of everything good in our lives, then the notion of the two artificially combating parties will disappear. It’s time to send them both home. And end the show in Washington”
Sorry, but that is dreaming in technicolor.
The fact is the US is pretty much a plutocracy now, and the two parties are heavily supported by that plutocracy.
You cannot even sit down at the card table without a huge stake.
It's what we call in economics, a barrier to entry.
The many quasi-monopolies and duopolies we see in our economy work the same way, as with gigantic advertising budgets a newcomer cannot hope to match.
A few facts on America's plutocracy.
The Supreme Court decision that "money is free speech."
Hillary Clinton burned through 1.2 billion dollars in just one campaign for one person.
Mike Bloomberg spent about $900 million on his recent brief effort for the nomination.
In practical terms, there are no limits on political spending and donating.
And there are no real limits on the work of lobbies for private and special interests.
It has become a standing joke that America has "the best Congress money can buy."
America's Frankenstein military/security apparatus is not about defense, at all. It is about the maintenance of global empire. It burns through a trillion dollars a year, and it exists to serve America's plutocracy and its establishment.
The American tax structure has become terribly bent. It is helping to generate huge disparities, the so-called "one percent", and support plutocracy.
The main difference between the two parties is the Democrats talk about various domestic social measures.
In all other respects, the parties are identical – in support for the Pentagon/security establishment, support for global empire, and support for almost continuous wars and coups, and both depend on plutocracy for a flow of funds. Voters get no choice at all in such matters.
And the irony for the Democrats is that so long as America burns through a trillion dollars a year for supporting empire – money it doesn’t even have, all borrowed – none of the large social programs can possibly happen.
And who do you think ends up paying for all the interest on all that immense borrowing? It sure ain’t the plutocrats that its expenditure served.
America’s political system is pretty much a rigged game. There’s no serious chance of changing it either, although a catastrophe like we’re now headed into could do that. But they are already talking in Washington of suspending habeas corpus and about which Pentagon general might step in.
Tulsi Gabbard wasn’t even allowed to compete because she questions the wars.
Bernie Sanders has been cheated a second time. He really isn’t a socialist, he’s an FDR progressive. But his being cheated twice by elaborate measures is the perfect example of how risk-averse America’s establishment is.
It ain’t a pretty picture, and the reality always gives me a little chuckle when I read of American officials telling others abroad how they should do things.
By the way, that vast expenditure on empire also gets in the way of improving America’s infrastructure – from schools to bridges.
The genuine way to compete with China is not Trump’s noise and threats and tariffs, it is old-fashioned getting down to work and improving your competitiveness, but America’s establishment isn’t the least interested in doing that. It feels entitled to be number one in everything, and so it just demands it. It’s what Putin accurately describes as “a sense of entitlement.”
In the end, it will get America nowhere, except into trouble. The American Dream was the simple result of having been the last industrial power standing after WWII and having invested heavily for the war.
But those conditions and that era are gone, for good. Others have invested and worked hard, and they do many things better than America does.
After all, do we not see throughout our lives the rise and fall of great firms, of great families? It is no different with empire.
America has been declining in relative terms in the world economy for decades. It is just the way things work. You cannot bully your way back, either, like the big bully in the White House thinks you can.
Pursuing that course is almost certainly going lead to war, and I can’t imagine that any sane person wants that, but to call some leaders in Washington sane is seriously stretching truth.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: OUTLINE OF A CATASTROPHE – KEY POINTS IN THE MODERN HISTORY OF AMERICA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAQ
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN PRESS TV
“US continues blame game against Iraq, says ‘disappointed’ over protection of forces”
The US invaded Iraq illegally in the first place. In the process and its aftermath, it killed maybe a million people.
The country, once one of the most advanced in the Arab world, still suffers with no dependable electricity.
The US bombed the network and basically refuses to repair it without being paid with Iraq' oil.
Iraq's government asks the US to remove its troops, but the US refuses.
Seventeen years of occupation after an illegal invasion.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant for sure, but how is the US any better at all?
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN PRESS TV
“US continues blame game against Iraq, says ‘disappointed’ over protection of forces”
The US invaded Iraq illegally in the first place. In the process and its aftermath, it killed maybe a million people.
The country, once one of the most advanced in the Arab world, still suffers with no dependable electricity.
The US bombed the network and basically refuses to repair it without being paid with Iraq' oil.
Iraq's government asks the US to remove its troops, but the US refuses.
Seventeen years of occupation after an illegal invasion.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant for sure, but how is the US any better at all?
Friday, March 20, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE SAD CONTINUED DECAY OF AMERICAN-CHINESE RELATIONS - TRUMP'S "DIPLOMACY" HAS BEEN POISONOUS AND NOTHING GOOD CAN COME FROM IT - CHINA TAKES STEPS AGAINST AMERICAN MEDIA IN RESPONSE TO THEIR PUBLISHING DISINFORMATION ABOUT CHINA - I LOVE CHINA'S CULTURE AND ACHIEVEMENTS AND I HAVE THE HAPPIEST MEMORIES OF THE SMILES AND LAUGHTER OF CHINESE STUDENTS STUDYING IN CANADA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHINA’S GLOBAL TIMES
“Tit-for-tat media spat decays ties
“China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Wednesday morning measures against five US media outlets operating in China - Voice of America, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Time”
Those particular news sources have always closely served American government interests, almost as though they were organs of the state.
Unfailingly, they support all the wars and incursions of Washington, and they have been among the places Washington uses to “get its story out there.”
And what we have right now from Washington is a kind of "cold" hybrid war of disinformation and sanctions and tariffs and intimidation.
I am sorry to see this, but I agree the step was probably necessary. China’s cautious leaders don’t do such things lightly.
I am especially sorry that the harshly aggressive types in Washington seem to be getting their way in destroying American-Chinese relations.
I am a great admirer of China, its people, its culture, and its near-miraculous modern accomplishments.
We served as “home-stays” for a wonderful young student from China. I also taught a number of Chinese students in a university economics class. I remember their smiles and laughter.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHINA’S GLOBAL TIMES
“Tit-for-tat media spat decays ties
“China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Wednesday morning measures against five US media outlets operating in China - Voice of America, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Time”
Those particular news sources have always closely served American government interests, almost as though they were organs of the state.
Unfailingly, they support all the wars and incursions of Washington, and they have been among the places Washington uses to “get its story out there.”
And what we have right now from Washington is a kind of "cold" hybrid war of disinformation and sanctions and tariffs and intimidation.
I am sorry to see this, but I agree the step was probably necessary. China’s cautious leaders don’t do such things lightly.
I am especially sorry that the harshly aggressive types in Washington seem to be getting their way in destroying American-Chinese relations.
I am a great admirer of China, its people, its culture, and its near-miraculous modern accomplishments.
We served as “home-stays” for a wonderful young student from China. I also taught a number of Chinese students in a university economics class. I remember their smiles and laughter.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: HAS AMERICA TURNED ITS "COLD" HYBRID WAR AGAINST CHINA INTO THE BEGINNINGS OF A HOT ONE WHICH KILLS AND INJURES? - CORONAVIRUS AN ENGINEERED BIO-WEAPON? - SOME VALUABLE PERSPECTIVES ON THE PANDEMIC
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PEPE ESCOBAR IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“China Locked in Hybrid War with US”
I think the article's author is less than convincing in his thesis.
Of course, the US has been fighting a certain kind of “hybrid war” against China for a while, one whose weapons include sanctions, tariffs, disinformation, regulations, pressure against a Chinese company like Huawei, pressure against other countries joining the Belt and Road Initiative, accusations of intellectual property theft, accusations about human rights, accusations of currency manipulation, and more.
But the issue here is whether that “cold” hybrid war, much of it going on for years, has now become a hot one where people are killed and injured.
The author weaves a little tapestry of hints and suggestions, a lot of them wordplay stuff that is unconvincing.
We have to wait for real evidence, scientific stuff, or witnesses because this is a serious and dangerous charge being made.
The case for the coronavirus being an engineered bio-weapon, a case made recently by a number of authors, is quite plausible, but it is not proved.
Even the fact that the virus is not as deadly as a great many diseases can be understood as supporting the notion of a weapon intended to hurt and inconvenience and cost rather than just kill.
But the idea of the US deliberately having used it against China seems considerably less plausible for several reasons.
First, the risk of its spreading back to the US and other places, as it has.
Second, the risk that China with its advanced science would conclusively find that it was a weapon.
Third, such a conclusive finding would cause a lot of outrage in the world, in places like Europe, where the US already has lost a great deal of favor and reputation.
Fourth, the risk of reprisal.
Note that I am not listing moral or ethical considerations by the US. The country that has used napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, fire-bombing, carpet-bombing, Agent Orange, and atomic weapons clearly doesn’t have any. The Pentagon has even embraced landmines despite an exhausting international effort for a convention, signed by over 160 nations, banning them.
But I note that the US has now some seriously unbalanced people in leading positions - Trump, Pompeo, and Co. – and possibly considerations against using bio-weapons could be pooh-poohed.
That's a strong statement to make, but it is sadly the reality of America today.
LATER NOTE
IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVES ON THE CORONAVIRUS:
http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2020/03/most-of-those-infected-wont-even-know.html
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/
http://www.domigood.com/2020/03/nobel-prize-winner-who-predicted-china.html
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/03/false-claims-about-the-novel-coronavirus-and-how-to-debunk-them.html#more
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PEPE ESCOBAR IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“China Locked in Hybrid War with US”
I think the article's author is less than convincing in his thesis.
Of course, the US has been fighting a certain kind of “hybrid war” against China for a while, one whose weapons include sanctions, tariffs, disinformation, regulations, pressure against a Chinese company like Huawei, pressure against other countries joining the Belt and Road Initiative, accusations of intellectual property theft, accusations about human rights, accusations of currency manipulation, and more.
But the issue here is whether that “cold” hybrid war, much of it going on for years, has now become a hot one where people are killed and injured.
The author weaves a little tapestry of hints and suggestions, a lot of them wordplay stuff that is unconvincing.
We have to wait for real evidence, scientific stuff, or witnesses because this is a serious and dangerous charge being made.
The case for the coronavirus being an engineered bio-weapon, a case made recently by a number of authors, is quite plausible, but it is not proved.
Even the fact that the virus is not as deadly as a great many diseases can be understood as supporting the notion of a weapon intended to hurt and inconvenience and cost rather than just kill.
But the idea of the US deliberately having used it against China seems considerably less plausible for several reasons.
First, the risk of its spreading back to the US and other places, as it has.
Second, the risk that China with its advanced science would conclusively find that it was a weapon.
Third, such a conclusive finding would cause a lot of outrage in the world, in places like Europe, where the US already has lost a great deal of favor and reputation.
Fourth, the risk of reprisal.
Note that I am not listing moral or ethical considerations by the US. The country that has used napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, fire-bombing, carpet-bombing, Agent Orange, and atomic weapons clearly doesn’t have any. The Pentagon has even embraced landmines despite an exhausting international effort for a convention, signed by over 160 nations, banning them.
But I note that the US has now some seriously unbalanced people in leading positions - Trump, Pompeo, and Co. – and possibly considerations against using bio-weapons could be pooh-poohed.
That's a strong statement to make, but it is sadly the reality of America today.
LATER NOTE
IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVES ON THE CORONAVIRUS:
http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2020/03/most-of-those-infected-wont-even-know.html
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/
http://www.domigood.com/2020/03/nobel-prize-winner-who-predicted-china.html
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/03/false-claims-about-the-novel-coronavirus-and-how-to-debunk-them.html#more
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT - A PLAGUE OF CHOLERA AND THE BLOCKADE OF YEMEN - BLOCKADES SHOULD RIGHTLY BE COMPARED TO MASSIVE BOMBING OF URBAN AREAS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DAVE DECAMP IN ANTI-EMPIRE
"Speaking of Contagions: US-Saudi Blockade Causes 750,000 Cholera (!) Cases in Yemen Per Annum?
“2.25 million since 2017 after Saudis dropped US bombs on water treatment infrastructure”
Excellent point to remind people about.
Of course, sanctions and blockades - measures so enthusiastically embraced by Trump's ugly mob - always and everywhere hurt the weakest and poorest in society.
They are barbaric measures and should always be compared to bombing densely-populated towns or cities.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DAVE DECAMP IN ANTI-EMPIRE
"Speaking of Contagions: US-Saudi Blockade Causes 750,000 Cholera (!) Cases in Yemen Per Annum?
“2.25 million since 2017 after Saudis dropped US bombs on water treatment infrastructure”
Excellent point to remind people about.
Of course, sanctions and blockades - measures so enthusiastically embraced by Trump's ugly mob - always and everywhere hurt the weakest and poorest in society.
They are barbaric measures and should always be compared to bombing densely-populated towns or cities.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A BIT MORE ABOUT HITLER'S FEVERISH OBSESSION, THE INVASION OF RUSSIA - AMERICA'S SAD RECORD SINCE THE END OF WWII - ITS OWN BLOODY GLOBAL EMPIRE AND SUPPORT FOR MANY TYRANTS JUST SO LONG AS THEY FOLLOW AMERICAN POLICY - BRIEF NOTE ON THE ADMIRATION OF HITLER BY BRITISH ROYALS AND ARISTOCRATS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI
_______________________
Response to a comment saying, "Hitler violated every treaty and obligation imposed on Germany. He invaded neighbors as well. He was determined to launch a global war because no one enforced anything against him until the final moment. The idea that you can just ignore everything up until the eve of WW2 is insane.”
That's not quite accurate. And that last generalization about ignoring everything is facile and does not reflect history. Hitler was never ignored. He was misjudged, and the political currents in Europe, just years after the ghastly horror of WWI and with the Great Depression, were against being too strict in enforcement of treaty details. There was a failure of statesmanship.
And please, the greatest truth ever written about history was from Heraclitus, “You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on." Not learning from the past and being condemned to repeat it has become one our society’s most tired clichés.
It has been used to defend some terrible crimes and blunders, especially by America’s establishment as it indeed sent its own armies marching across the globe to oppress others. The truth is you must carefully assess each situation which arises because each of them is, in some way or another, genuinely new.
Please note that the United States itself has killed something on the order of 8 to 20 million people – estimates vary, but it has been a very bloody record - in its colonial wars, coups, and incursions since WWII. And often its leaders at the time cited George Santayana’s “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”
The US also has supported many truly brutal governments in other countries, just so long as they supported American policy.
It’s a very long list, and each nation on it represents many atrocities.
Here’s just part of it: Egypt’s Mubarak, Saudi Arabia, Argentina’s junta, Peru’s junta, Chile’s military dictatorship, Iran’s Shah, the Philippines’ Marcos, Indonesia’s Suharto, South Vietnam’s dictators, South Africa’s Nationalists, the dictatorship in South Korea for many years after WWII, Israel’s wars and oppression, the crooked PRI party governing Mexico for many decades, Cuba’s Batista, Iraq’s Saddam for many years, and Romania’s Ceauşescu.
Anyway, it is largely irrelevant what most Americans think of these matters. The policies of war and empire are decided completely by the power establishment. Of course, allied major news sources work overtime to manufacture public support - all power establishments anywhere preferring to be liked and accepted - but America is not a democracy, not at all, and what the bulk of its people think about such matters really does not count.
Global war was not Hitler's aim. Although, had he succeeded in his primary aim, years later, that result might well have followed.
Since the early 1920s, Hitler’s dominating, fierce vision, the purpose he felt he was on earth to achieve - he did definitely have a bit of a “messiah complex” - was the conquest of Russia.
He wanted to turn the best lands in Russia into part of Germany, emulating America's success in its march West. Big resources and markets mattered, and he felt Germany’s size crippled her potential.
He tried convincing European leaders at various points to allow him the freedom to get rid of something they hated, the Soviet Union.
But largely they would not. Such a huge Germany represented a great future threat. And that's besides the barbaric visions he had for Russia, turning much of the population into slaves and allowing the rest to perish while repopulating it with acceptably Germanic types. Hitler’s nightmare vision was on a grand scale. He was a fan, after all, of Wagnerian opera.
Most of the European war he fought resulted from European leaders not agreeing to accommodate his drive to destroy Russia, effectively blocking him in his “anointed” purpose. In a few smaller instances, he was “reclaiming” what he regarded as German. Poland, whose invasion finally triggered the war, represented a huge wall in front of the Soviet Union to be removed, and a dirty deal with the Soviets to split it offered some assurance to Stalin.
In his build-up for what he saw as his great task, he did break treaty after treaty, reoccupying the Rhineland, rearming, etc.
Much of his armament work was concealed, but the truth is, much of his mid-1930s efforts were winked at by some European leaders.
Many felt the Versailles Treaty had been too hard on Germany and quietly wished for it to rejoin the historic club of major European nations.
Many misunderstood his fanaticism because Hitler was perfectly capable of presenting himself as gracious, charming, and thoughtful. That appearance fooled many, including the Royals in Britain.
Strong admiration for Hitler, on the part of both “the woman he loved” and himself, was the real reason for the forced abdication of Edward VIII. There are many photos of them both with stars in their eyes around Hitler. Many British aristocrats were in the same fan club.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI
_______________________
Response to a comment saying, "Hitler violated every treaty and obligation imposed on Germany. He invaded neighbors as well. He was determined to launch a global war because no one enforced anything against him until the final moment. The idea that you can just ignore everything up until the eve of WW2 is insane.”
That's not quite accurate. And that last generalization about ignoring everything is facile and does not reflect history. Hitler was never ignored. He was misjudged, and the political currents in Europe, just years after the ghastly horror of WWI and with the Great Depression, were against being too strict in enforcement of treaty details. There was a failure of statesmanship.
And please, the greatest truth ever written about history was from Heraclitus, “You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on." Not learning from the past and being condemned to repeat it has become one our society’s most tired clichés.
It has been used to defend some terrible crimes and blunders, especially by America’s establishment as it indeed sent its own armies marching across the globe to oppress others. The truth is you must carefully assess each situation which arises because each of them is, in some way or another, genuinely new.
Please note that the United States itself has killed something on the order of 8 to 20 million people – estimates vary, but it has been a very bloody record - in its colonial wars, coups, and incursions since WWII. And often its leaders at the time cited George Santayana’s “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”
The US also has supported many truly brutal governments in other countries, just so long as they supported American policy.
It’s a very long list, and each nation on it represents many atrocities.
Here’s just part of it: Egypt’s Mubarak, Saudi Arabia, Argentina’s junta, Peru’s junta, Chile’s military dictatorship, Iran’s Shah, the Philippines’ Marcos, Indonesia’s Suharto, South Vietnam’s dictators, South Africa’s Nationalists, the dictatorship in South Korea for many years after WWII, Israel’s wars and oppression, the crooked PRI party governing Mexico for many decades, Cuba’s Batista, Iraq’s Saddam for many years, and Romania’s Ceauşescu.
Anyway, it is largely irrelevant what most Americans think of these matters. The policies of war and empire are decided completely by the power establishment. Of course, allied major news sources work overtime to manufacture public support - all power establishments anywhere preferring to be liked and accepted - but America is not a democracy, not at all, and what the bulk of its people think about such matters really does not count.
Global war was not Hitler's aim. Although, had he succeeded in his primary aim, years later, that result might well have followed.
Since the early 1920s, Hitler’s dominating, fierce vision, the purpose he felt he was on earth to achieve - he did definitely have a bit of a “messiah complex” - was the conquest of Russia.
He wanted to turn the best lands in Russia into part of Germany, emulating America's success in its march West. Big resources and markets mattered, and he felt Germany’s size crippled her potential.
He tried convincing European leaders at various points to allow him the freedom to get rid of something they hated, the Soviet Union.
But largely they would not. Such a huge Germany represented a great future threat. And that's besides the barbaric visions he had for Russia, turning much of the population into slaves and allowing the rest to perish while repopulating it with acceptably Germanic types. Hitler’s nightmare vision was on a grand scale. He was a fan, after all, of Wagnerian opera.
Most of the European war he fought resulted from European leaders not agreeing to accommodate his drive to destroy Russia, effectively blocking him in his “anointed” purpose. In a few smaller instances, he was “reclaiming” what he regarded as German. Poland, whose invasion finally triggered the war, represented a huge wall in front of the Soviet Union to be removed, and a dirty deal with the Soviets to split it offered some assurance to Stalin.
In his build-up for what he saw as his great task, he did break treaty after treaty, reoccupying the Rhineland, rearming, etc.
Much of his armament work was concealed, but the truth is, much of his mid-1930s efforts were winked at by some European leaders.
Many felt the Versailles Treaty had been too hard on Germany and quietly wished for it to rejoin the historic club of major European nations.
Many misunderstood his fanaticism because Hitler was perfectly capable of presenting himself as gracious, charming, and thoughtful. That appearance fooled many, including the Royals in Britain.
Strong admiration for Hitler, on the part of both “the woman he loved” and himself, was the real reason for the forced abdication of Edward VIII. There are many photos of them both with stars in their eyes around Hitler. Many British aristocrats were in the same fan club.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A BRILLIANT SUMMARY OF AMERICA'S POLITICAL SITUATION AND PROSPECTS FOR CHANGES IN FOREIGN POLICY - AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHY TULSI GABBARD ENDORSED JOE BIDEN - HOW THE AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT REMAINS THE ESTABLISHMENT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“A Tale of Two Foreign Policies: the Train-Wreck Abroad Is Bipartisan”
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/a-tale-of-two-foreign-policies-the-train-wreck-abroad-is-bipartisan/
A brilliant summary of America’s political situation and prospects for change in foreign policy.
I believe the investments in current foreign policy – by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Senate, the State Department – and the power of those they serve – America’s plutocracy – are just too huge for them to take even the slightest risk about possible change.
_________________________
Response to a comment asking, ”Why did Tulsi endorse Biden? Was she always a fraud, or was she threatened?”
She was no fraud.
But in either of the two American political parties, if you do not endorse the party's candidate, you might as well consider your political career over.
Remember, Bernie, in 2016, even after clearly being cheated out of the nomination by Hillary Clinton, still endorsed her and even worked for her.
That's just the way the establishment works.
Tulsi is one of the few honest - at least over a range of important matters – American politicians to come along in recent years.
The result of being honest about America's imperial wars was her virtual exclusion from speaking and from decent press coverage.
That is how the American establishment remains the establishment.
There is no sense of genuine democracy in America, nor do independent, third-party efforts enjoy any success owing to the huge bankroll needed to play at the poker table.
She is an ambitious and intelligent woman and still wants a future.
To better understand, see this very clear explanation:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“A Tale of Two Foreign Policies: the Train-Wreck Abroad Is Bipartisan”
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/a-tale-of-two-foreign-policies-the-train-wreck-abroad-is-bipartisan/
A brilliant summary of America’s political situation and prospects for change in foreign policy.
I believe the investments in current foreign policy – by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Senate, the State Department – and the power of those they serve – America’s plutocracy – are just too huge for them to take even the slightest risk about possible change.
_________________________
Response to a comment asking, ”Why did Tulsi endorse Biden? Was she always a fraud, or was she threatened?”
She was no fraud.
But in either of the two American political parties, if you do not endorse the party's candidate, you might as well consider your political career over.
Remember, Bernie, in 2016, even after clearly being cheated out of the nomination by Hillary Clinton, still endorsed her and even worked for her.
That's just the way the establishment works.
Tulsi is one of the few honest - at least over a range of important matters – American politicians to come along in recent years.
The result of being honest about America's imperial wars was her virtual exclusion from speaking and from decent press coverage.
That is how the American establishment remains the establishment.
There is no sense of genuine democracy in America, nor do independent, third-party efforts enjoy any success owing to the huge bankroll needed to play at the poker table.
She is an ambitious and intelligent woman and still wants a future.
To better understand, see this very clear explanation:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICAN INHUMANITY ON HARSH DISPLAY - SANCTIONS ON VENEZUELA AND IRAN IN THE MIDST OF A FRIGHTENING PANDEMIC - MEMORIES OF MADELEINE ALBRIGHT AND THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DEAD KIDS IN IRAQ - AMERICA'S MEDAL OF FREEDOM AND ORWELL'S PARTY SLOGANS IN 1984
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ALBA CIUDAD IN ANTI-EMPIRE
“Maduro Says It Costs Venezuela Triple to Buy Virus Test Kits Due to US Sanctions
“Calls on Washington to drop sanction so they can go and buy what's needed”
Nothing better reveals America's worst character than its behavior towards Iran and Venezuela at a time of great hardship.
It indeed does bring back thoughts of dear old Madeleine Albright, a genuinely hateful creature, speaking callously about the tens of thousands of dead children in Iraq.
By the way, she received the Medal of Freedom just like Joe Biden, who perhaps got it for his advocacy of America's industrial-scale extrajudicial killing operation or perhaps his glorious work in Ukraine or his enthusiastic support for invading Iraq and killing a million people.
If ever there were something totally misnamed, it is the Medal of Freedom.
The name quite literally has the character of one of Orwell’s Party slogans in “1984.”
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ALBA CIUDAD IN ANTI-EMPIRE
“Maduro Says It Costs Venezuela Triple to Buy Virus Test Kits Due to US Sanctions
“Calls on Washington to drop sanction so they can go and buy what's needed”
Nothing better reveals America's worst character than its behavior towards Iran and Venezuela at a time of great hardship.
It indeed does bring back thoughts of dear old Madeleine Albright, a genuinely hateful creature, speaking callously about the tens of thousands of dead children in Iraq.
By the way, she received the Medal of Freedom just like Joe Biden, who perhaps got it for his advocacy of America's industrial-scale extrajudicial killing operation or perhaps his glorious work in Ukraine or his enthusiastic support for invading Iraq and killing a million people.
If ever there were something totally misnamed, it is the Medal of Freedom.
The name quite literally has the character of one of Orwell’s Party slogans in “1984.”
Sunday, March 15, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE INORDINATE INFLUENCE OF "THE ISRAEL LOBBY" WITH WESTERN GOVERNMENTS RESULTS FROM THE INTERACTION OF TWO CIRCUMSTANCES - WESTERN GOVERNMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE UNITED STATES, HAVE PUT MONEY AT THE VERY HEART OF NATIONAL POLITICS AND JEWISH CITIZENS ENJOY AN ABOVE-AVERAGE RATE OF SUCCESS IN BUSINESS AND THE PROFESSIONS OWING TO NATURAL TALENT AND HARD WORK - EFFECTIVE CONSTANT ISRAELI MEDDLING IN WESTERN POLITICS JUST FALLS OUT OF THOSE CONDITIONS - IT REQUIRES THE ATTENTION OF LEGISLATORS TO CORRECT BECAUSE IT HAS RESULTED IN DANGEROUS AND UNFAIR SITUATIONS RANGING FROM THE BLOODY NEOCON WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST TO THE COMPROMISE OF ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME AND ABROAD
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“It poisons everything it touches”
“A recent article by Philip Weiss on the Mondoweiss website… details how the vast sums of money raised by both Democratic and Republican Jews has distorted American politics since the time of President Harry S. Truman. He describes how president after president has backed down versus Israel when confronted by Jewish power and observes that ‘This is not just a domestic political question, it’s a foreign policy problem.’”
In any discussion of the influence of money in politics, it is important to remember that we have no democracies in the Western world, despite constant references to them. We have nothing even seriously approaching democracy anywhere in the West. Of course, the very word “democracy” implies certain kinds of equality among citizens, something we simply do not see.
We have governments wrapped in various representative democratic theatrical costumes, from parliamentary to congressional, all of which, in fact, are highly responsive to wealth and plutocratic interests, both corporate and personal. Those with more money have more influence in all our societies, always, except in times of extraordinary stress, as during revolutions.
I hardly think the case even needs to be made that wealthy corporations and individuals are especially well served by Western governments.
Their favorable treatment stems both from a belief that it is good for the country’s economy and its international competitiveness, but also from the certainty that it is good for the campaign war chests of the political parties and individual politicians involved.
This is very apparent in the United States where the Congress has often been sarcastically described as “the best that money can buy” and where the Supreme Court has ruled that “money is free speech” when it comes to politics.
Now, it seems also unnecessary to argue the fact of Jewish success in our economies. The number of successful businessmen, large and small, and professionals, of every description, is quite remarkable, their numbers well out of proportion to the numbers of Jewish people versus other groups. A source of pride and achievement, surely.
I believe that easily observable fact is explained by higher-than-average native intelligence plus a group cultural dedication to education and willingness to work hard with strong natural drives for success. All fine qualities.
So, in societies where politics are heavily influenced by money – and I really cannot think of any where that is not the case - why would it be a surprise, or in any way controversial, to say that Jewish people, out of proportion to their number, are influential?
It would seem to me to follow just as sunset follows sunrise.
After all, is anyone in any way surprised, or insulted, by the obvious fact that people of no means have no influence, none at all, their only political role being fleetingly to be appealed to for a vote every few years, and that appeal generally not even in person but by means of advertising?
And please note, even the advertising needed to do that, with all its ancillary research and marketing functions, costs serious money on a national scale.
In large countries, just sheer brief access to people holding high office is mainly determined by influence and wealth, and given the political system that we have, I don’t see how it could be otherwise. It is a form of social/political triage.
The fact shouldn’t be a point of envy or hatred either, because it is meaningless to have such feelings about natural outcomes of a given set of circumstances.
However, the unique reality of Israel, an organized state which claims to represent only one group of people, Jewish people, and employs many avenues of influence, does considerably alter the naturally occurring political situation.
It is a state with all the tools of intrusive intelligence services and with immense diplomatic privileges and access. It is also very heavily armed, giving it weight in international affairs it would not possess otherwise. And it tends to be supported, naturally enough, by most Jewish citizens in any country.
Having all the powers of an organized state behind one group of citizens in many different countries considerably distorts things, both realities and perceptions. It also becomes a source of common distress and frustration when that state is seen to be so patently unfair to millions of non-Jews who fall under its rule, as is very much the case for Israel.
To be fair and to be perceived as fair, Israel would actually have to go out of its way, maintaining a strictly hands-off, proper diplomatic behavior, to avoid trying to influence affairs in other countries, but we can all see that it does not do that.
It literally does the opposite frequently, actively trying to influence what laws and policies are adopted, as well as sometimes entering directly into partisan political matters, as it has done both in the United States and in Britain.
Just a few notable examples include efforts to see legislation equating criticism of the state of Israel with the prejudice of anti-Semitism, something that is patently unfair and untrue. We also see heavy efforts for legislation to curtail the rights of citizens to protest the state of Israel’s behavior with peaceful boycotts, activity that was key to ending apartheid in South Africa decades ago.
And we see various direct meddling by Israeli officials in politics abroad, as recently by Israel’s Prime Minister libelling the leader of Britain’s Labour Party. He was joined by some other Israeli officials, too. And Israel directly interferes in foreign policy at times, as in the recent launching of all-out American economic war with serious military threats against Iran, a country which has broken no laws and started no wars.
Indeed, the source of many accusations around “anti-Semitism” isn’t actual prejudice – although that is often blurred by lobbyists and special-interest leaders. It is the natural human emotional disturbance millions feel over the glaring injustice of a national state and its efforts to evade all responsibility for that injustice.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“It poisons everything it touches”
“A recent article by Philip Weiss on the Mondoweiss website… details how the vast sums of money raised by both Democratic and Republican Jews has distorted American politics since the time of President Harry S. Truman. He describes how president after president has backed down versus Israel when confronted by Jewish power and observes that ‘This is not just a domestic political question, it’s a foreign policy problem.’”
In any discussion of the influence of money in politics, it is important to remember that we have no democracies in the Western world, despite constant references to them. We have nothing even seriously approaching democracy anywhere in the West. Of course, the very word “democracy” implies certain kinds of equality among citizens, something we simply do not see.
We have governments wrapped in various representative democratic theatrical costumes, from parliamentary to congressional, all of which, in fact, are highly responsive to wealth and plutocratic interests, both corporate and personal. Those with more money have more influence in all our societies, always, except in times of extraordinary stress, as during revolutions.
I hardly think the case even needs to be made that wealthy corporations and individuals are especially well served by Western governments.
Their favorable treatment stems both from a belief that it is good for the country’s economy and its international competitiveness, but also from the certainty that it is good for the campaign war chests of the political parties and individual politicians involved.
This is very apparent in the United States where the Congress has often been sarcastically described as “the best that money can buy” and where the Supreme Court has ruled that “money is free speech” when it comes to politics.
Now, it seems also unnecessary to argue the fact of Jewish success in our economies. The number of successful businessmen, large and small, and professionals, of every description, is quite remarkable, their numbers well out of proportion to the numbers of Jewish people versus other groups. A source of pride and achievement, surely.
I believe that easily observable fact is explained by higher-than-average native intelligence plus a group cultural dedication to education and willingness to work hard with strong natural drives for success. All fine qualities.
So, in societies where politics are heavily influenced by money – and I really cannot think of any where that is not the case - why would it be a surprise, or in any way controversial, to say that Jewish people, out of proportion to their number, are influential?
It would seem to me to follow just as sunset follows sunrise.
After all, is anyone in any way surprised, or insulted, by the obvious fact that people of no means have no influence, none at all, their only political role being fleetingly to be appealed to for a vote every few years, and that appeal generally not even in person but by means of advertising?
And please note, even the advertising needed to do that, with all its ancillary research and marketing functions, costs serious money on a national scale.
In large countries, just sheer brief access to people holding high office is mainly determined by influence and wealth, and given the political system that we have, I don’t see how it could be otherwise. It is a form of social/political triage.
The fact shouldn’t be a point of envy or hatred either, because it is meaningless to have such feelings about natural outcomes of a given set of circumstances.
However, the unique reality of Israel, an organized state which claims to represent only one group of people, Jewish people, and employs many avenues of influence, does considerably alter the naturally occurring political situation.
It is a state with all the tools of intrusive intelligence services and with immense diplomatic privileges and access. It is also very heavily armed, giving it weight in international affairs it would not possess otherwise. And it tends to be supported, naturally enough, by most Jewish citizens in any country.
Having all the powers of an organized state behind one group of citizens in many different countries considerably distorts things, both realities and perceptions. It also becomes a source of common distress and frustration when that state is seen to be so patently unfair to millions of non-Jews who fall under its rule, as is very much the case for Israel.
To be fair and to be perceived as fair, Israel would actually have to go out of its way, maintaining a strictly hands-off, proper diplomatic behavior, to avoid trying to influence affairs in other countries, but we can all see that it does not do that.
It literally does the opposite frequently, actively trying to influence what laws and policies are adopted, as well as sometimes entering directly into partisan political matters, as it has done both in the United States and in Britain.
Just a few notable examples include efforts to see legislation equating criticism of the state of Israel with the prejudice of anti-Semitism, something that is patently unfair and untrue. We also see heavy efforts for legislation to curtail the rights of citizens to protest the state of Israel’s behavior with peaceful boycotts, activity that was key to ending apartheid in South Africa decades ago.
And we see various direct meddling by Israeli officials in politics abroad, as recently by Israel’s Prime Minister libelling the leader of Britain’s Labour Party. He was joined by some other Israeli officials, too. And Israel directly interferes in foreign policy at times, as in the recent launching of all-out American economic war with serious military threats against Iran, a country which has broken no laws and started no wars.
Indeed, the source of many accusations around “anti-Semitism” isn’t actual prejudice – although that is often blurred by lobbyists and special-interest leaders. It is the natural human emotional disturbance millions feel over the glaring injustice of a national state and its efforts to evade all responsibility for that injustice.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: BIO-WEAPONS - EXPLORING A BIT OF THEIR HISTORY - PROBLEMS USING THEM - THE NATURE OF WAR AND THE PEOPLE WHO WAGE IT - HATRED MAKES PEOPLE IRRATIONAL AND WE HEAR A LOT OF PRETTY INTENSE HATRED THESE DAYS COMING FROM THE UNITED STATES
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY THE SAKER IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Looking at the Military Aspects of Biological Warfare”
Not the clearest article, but an important fact stands out for me: bio-weapons are rather unpredictable. Just shifts in the wind, for example, can represent a problem.
Were they more predictable, I think it likely the US would have used them a good deal in all its colonial wars since the end of WW II. Other states, too. Britain, the Soviet Union, and still others are known to have worked with such weapons.
Fear of attribution in such dark matters might play a role in prevention. But it sure didn’t in the use of napalm or white phosphorus or cluster bombs or Agent Orange or fire-bombing or nuclear weapons – all of which have been openly used with no apologies. The Pentagon has embraced landmines too.
The US certainly has developed and kept bio-weapons in the recent past. Remember the anthrax attack and scare of 2001? That was military-grade anthrax.
It is claimed that the US did use some kind of bio-weapon in North Korea and perhaps in the adjoining area of China during the Korean War. I’ve seen references to that several times in the past.
I don’t know, but the US was certainly utterly ruthless in that war. Three years of carpet-bombing killed one-fifth of the country’s entire population, and that’s a number from a Pentagon source.
Of course, that hellish experience has a lot to do with North Korea’s sacrificing a great deal to develop nuclear weapons and its not wanting to give them up.
The US Cavalry is said by some sources to have used small-pox laden blankets, given as gifts, in its Indian Wars of the 19th century. I don’t know whether that is proved, but the Cavalry did many other ruthless acts, including the wiping out of entire villages.
I tend to be a stickler for proof, so when I read an article like Philip Giraldi's recent one on who made coronavirus, I am very interested but take no position. That was a superb article, by the way.
When it comes to matters of war, I think we always have to keep in mind that wars and the people who run them are not rational. So, the use of bio-weapons may not be precluded by rational considerations about their predictability and spread.
Not only are a fair number of psychopaths (eg, Curtis LeMay) and extreme narcissists (eg, Douglas MacArthur) involved in the military, but just hate itself is a form of temporary insanity.
Giraldi gave the excellent example of the Stuxnet computer virus, a very dangerous weapon believed developed by the US and Israel. It was used against Iran, and it leaked out to other places, creating some serious hazards (There has been considerable speculation that the escaped Stuxnet virus contributed to the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power station). Clearly, the warlords hating Iran didn’t care.
It is an odd coincidence that a group of American military had visited the region of China where coronavirus broke out, and you certainly can understand some Chinese being very suspicious about it.
Some pretty vicious hatreds pour out of the US anymore towards China and Russia and Iran.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY THE SAKER IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Looking at the Military Aspects of Biological Warfare”
Not the clearest article, but an important fact stands out for me: bio-weapons are rather unpredictable. Just shifts in the wind, for example, can represent a problem.
Were they more predictable, I think it likely the US would have used them a good deal in all its colonial wars since the end of WW II. Other states, too. Britain, the Soviet Union, and still others are known to have worked with such weapons.
Fear of attribution in such dark matters might play a role in prevention. But it sure didn’t in the use of napalm or white phosphorus or cluster bombs or Agent Orange or fire-bombing or nuclear weapons – all of which have been openly used with no apologies. The Pentagon has embraced landmines too.
The US certainly has developed and kept bio-weapons in the recent past. Remember the anthrax attack and scare of 2001? That was military-grade anthrax.
It is claimed that the US did use some kind of bio-weapon in North Korea and perhaps in the adjoining area of China during the Korean War. I’ve seen references to that several times in the past.
I don’t know, but the US was certainly utterly ruthless in that war. Three years of carpet-bombing killed one-fifth of the country’s entire population, and that’s a number from a Pentagon source.
Of course, that hellish experience has a lot to do with North Korea’s sacrificing a great deal to develop nuclear weapons and its not wanting to give them up.
The US Cavalry is said by some sources to have used small-pox laden blankets, given as gifts, in its Indian Wars of the 19th century. I don’t know whether that is proved, but the Cavalry did many other ruthless acts, including the wiping out of entire villages.
I tend to be a stickler for proof, so when I read an article like Philip Giraldi's recent one on who made coronavirus, I am very interested but take no position. That was a superb article, by the way.
When it comes to matters of war, I think we always have to keep in mind that wars and the people who run them are not rational. So, the use of bio-weapons may not be precluded by rational considerations about their predictability and spread.
Not only are a fair number of psychopaths (eg, Curtis LeMay) and extreme narcissists (eg, Douglas MacArthur) involved in the military, but just hate itself is a form of temporary insanity.
Giraldi gave the excellent example of the Stuxnet computer virus, a very dangerous weapon believed developed by the US and Israel. It was used against Iran, and it leaked out to other places, creating some serious hazards (There has been considerable speculation that the escaped Stuxnet virus contributed to the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power station). Clearly, the warlords hating Iran didn’t care.
It is an odd coincidence that a group of American military had visited the region of China where coronavirus broke out, and you certainly can understand some Chinese being very suspicious about it.
Some pretty vicious hatreds pour out of the US anymore towards China and Russia and Iran.
Saturday, March 14, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE MATTER OF PUTIN'S STAYING ON IN RUSSIA - I'M OPPOSED TO "LIFETIME" LEADERS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT OUR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ANYTHING BUT NORMAL - I'M GLAD IF THIS GIFTED STATESMAN CAN CONTINUE MAKING A CONTRIBUTION TO PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING - ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MEANS HE CAN WORK WITH A MAN OF XI'S SUPERB ABILITIES IN CHINA, RUSSIA'S NOW-INDISPENSABLE ALLY
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GILBERT DOCTOROW IN ANTI-EMPIRE (FORMERLY, CHECKPOINT ASIA)
“[Putin] staying on would fly in the face of everything he has been saying for years”
I don't agree with the analysis.
Were conditions in the world more normal, I would agree. I don't favor "lifetime" leaders.
But conditions are not normal, not all, and they are being deliberately and dangerously manipulated by the US, and on many fronts – the Baltics, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and China (Russia's indispensable partner now), plus still others
It makes aggressive economic war against many states and threatens genuine war.
There is a clear threat to Putin's primary goal - that of seeing Russia enjoy decades of peaceful economic growth to repair its many scars and wounds.
The author believes the legislative arrangements were "well-choreographed in advance"
Who cares? The goals are not evil. They indeed are the opposite.
Most Americans have no idea about what Russia went through after the collapse of the USSR. It was literally the Great Depression all over again.
And then, instead of helping, America worked against its interests in many ways.
It is still doing so, but now with open hostility and threats.
Putin is a proven statesman, extraordinarily capable, and he definitely commands the respect of much of the world, including a good many Americans.
Literally, only China's Xi is his match for sharp, quiet intelligence and far-sightedness and respect for other societies. It is a good thing, for everyone, if they can continue to work together some extra years.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GILBERT DOCTOROW IN ANTI-EMPIRE (FORMERLY, CHECKPOINT ASIA)
“[Putin] staying on would fly in the face of everything he has been saying for years”
I don't agree with the analysis.
Were conditions in the world more normal, I would agree. I don't favor "lifetime" leaders.
But conditions are not normal, not all, and they are being deliberately and dangerously manipulated by the US, and on many fronts – the Baltics, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and China (Russia's indispensable partner now), plus still others
It makes aggressive economic war against many states and threatens genuine war.
There is a clear threat to Putin's primary goal - that of seeing Russia enjoy decades of peaceful economic growth to repair its many scars and wounds.
The author believes the legislative arrangements were "well-choreographed in advance"
Who cares? The goals are not evil. They indeed are the opposite.
Most Americans have no idea about what Russia went through after the collapse of the USSR. It was literally the Great Depression all over again.
And then, instead of helping, America worked against its interests in many ways.
It is still doing so, but now with open hostility and threats.
Putin is a proven statesman, extraordinarily capable, and he definitely commands the respect of much of the world, including a good many Americans.
Literally, only China's Xi is his match for sharp, quiet intelligence and far-sightedness and respect for other societies. It is a good thing, for everyone, if they can continue to work together some extra years.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE NEW YORK TIMES IS THE OFFICIAL HOUSE ORGAN FOR AMERICA'S POWER ESTABLISHMENT - IT "AUTHENTICATES" THE GOVERNMENT'S MANY LIES RATHER THAN INVESTIGATE TO REVEAL THEM - IT HAS ALWAYS DONE SO - NOW IT GOES ALL SELF-RIGHTEOUS OVER SOMEONE SPECULATING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF CORONAVIRUS AND REVIVES THE LANGUAGE OF THE COLD WAR - AND OF COURSE THE TARGET IS CHINA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY STEVEN MYER FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Chinese officials and news outlets have floated unfounded theories that the United States was the source of the virus.
“The circulation of disinformation is not a new tactic for the Communist Party state”
That last line comes straight from the days of the Cold War. It represents insufferable self-righteousness from a newspaper that functions almost as an official state organ on all weighty matters, especially those abroad.
The world today knows how the American government lies. Ceaselessly. Often viciously.
Indeed, it has to lie, or it would be admitting to serious criminal behavior in every corner of the world.
It lies about Venezuela.
It lies about Bolivia.
It lies about Cuba.
It lies about Syria.
It lies about Iraq.
It lies about Yemen.
It lies about Iran.
It lies about Afghanistan.
It lies about Libya.
It lies about Saudi Arabia.
It lies about Israel.
It lies about Ukraine.
It lies about Russia.
It lies about China.
It even lies about heroic figures like Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.
And in all that churning sea of lies, what do the self-righteous journalists and editors of the New York Times do?
Why, they lie to support the lies.
AFTERNOTE
Given America’s ugly behavior in the world, its many open hostilities, it should be no surprise that people have suspicions and speculate about the origin of the virus, including quite a number from the United States itself.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY STEVEN MYER FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Chinese officials and news outlets have floated unfounded theories that the United States was the source of the virus.
“The circulation of disinformation is not a new tactic for the Communist Party state”
That last line comes straight from the days of the Cold War. It represents insufferable self-righteousness from a newspaper that functions almost as an official state organ on all weighty matters, especially those abroad.
The world today knows how the American government lies. Ceaselessly. Often viciously.
Indeed, it has to lie, or it would be admitting to serious criminal behavior in every corner of the world.
It lies about Venezuela.
It lies about Bolivia.
It lies about Cuba.
It lies about Syria.
It lies about Iraq.
It lies about Yemen.
It lies about Iran.
It lies about Afghanistan.
It lies about Libya.
It lies about Saudi Arabia.
It lies about Israel.
It lies about Ukraine.
It lies about Russia.
It lies about China.
It even lies about heroic figures like Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.
And in all that churning sea of lies, what do the self-righteous journalists and editors of the New York Times do?
Why, they lie to support the lies.
AFTERNOTE
Given America’s ugly behavior in the world, its many open hostilities, it should be no surprise that people have suspicions and speculate about the origin of the virus, including quite a number from the United States itself.
Friday, March 13, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CORONAVIRUS WILL KILL "THE NEW WORLD ORDER" SEEMS NAIVE - IT REPRESENTS A BRIEF CHALLENGE FOR THE IRRESISTIBLE, ENDURING ECONOMIC FORCES OF GLOBALIZATION - WHY THE PHRASE "NEW WORLD ORDER" IS SO UNWELCOME
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PAT BUCHANAN IN THE UNZ REVIEW
"Will the Coronavirus Kill the New World Order?"
"New World Order" has become an unwelcome phrase because it is so often used to lend a rather sinister air to something which is not in the least sinister, trade and commerce.
If one means by it the totality of international economic relationships plus the organizations created to provide a framework for that economic activity, the answer to Mr. Buchanan's question is a resounding "no."
Globalization is the natural outcome of humanity's desire for economic growth with advances in technology for planning, transportation, and communications making it possible to work on a global scale.
It allows all aspects of production and distribution to be done on a gigantic scale, bringing down costs as compared to strictly national operations. It allows the same for division of labor and specialization, the practices Adam Smith explained in "The Wealth of Nations" which were fundamental to the great productivity of early factory systems.
Those economic forces are entirely unaffected by the setback of a temporary disease.
It seems a bit silly to think they might be. Very much like believing someone can successfully pee against powerful winds.
And it seems even sillier to see this temporary disease as a trumpet call for resurgent nationalism and trade barriers. Very much Luddite-style thinking. Going backward.
Germany and Japan and other major nation-states were literally in total ruins at the end of WWII. Look at them today.
If the colossal destruction and death of WWII - more than 50 million people died in that conflict - could cause only a temporary pause in the momentum of economics and trade, this disease - which the Chinese already have demonstrated can be brought under control - hardly can be expected to end it.
And it should be noted that a very great part of those countries’ postwar success had to do with international trade.
In 15th century Europe, the next town or village was a far-off place, decent roads being rare and the cost of horses and vehicles being beyond the means of most of the population.
That's a very good measure of the way our thinking and expectations have adjusted with changing technology.
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PAT BUCHANAN IN THE UNZ REVIEW
"Will the Coronavirus Kill the New World Order?"
"New World Order" has become an unwelcome phrase because it is so often used to lend a rather sinister air to something which is not in the least sinister, trade and commerce.
If one means by it the totality of international economic relationships plus the organizations created to provide a framework for that economic activity, the answer to Mr. Buchanan's question is a resounding "no."
Globalization is the natural outcome of humanity's desire for economic growth with advances in technology for planning, transportation, and communications making it possible to work on a global scale.
It allows all aspects of production and distribution to be done on a gigantic scale, bringing down costs as compared to strictly national operations. It allows the same for division of labor and specialization, the practices Adam Smith explained in "The Wealth of Nations" which were fundamental to the great productivity of early factory systems.
Those economic forces are entirely unaffected by the setback of a temporary disease.
It seems a bit silly to think they might be. Very much like believing someone can successfully pee against powerful winds.
And it seems even sillier to see this temporary disease as a trumpet call for resurgent nationalism and trade barriers. Very much Luddite-style thinking. Going backward.
Germany and Japan and other major nation-states were literally in total ruins at the end of WWII. Look at them today.
If the colossal destruction and death of WWII - more than 50 million people died in that conflict - could cause only a temporary pause in the momentum of economics and trade, this disease - which the Chinese already have demonstrated can be brought under control - hardly can be expected to end it.
And it should be noted that a very great part of those countries’ postwar success had to do with international trade.
In 15th century Europe, the next town or village was a far-off place, decent roads being rare and the cost of horses and vehicles being beyond the means of most of the population.
That's a very good measure of the way our thinking and expectations have adjusted with changing technology.
Thursday, March 12, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: OBJECTIONS TO JOE BIDEN - A CONSOLIDATION OF POINTS FROM SEVERAL EARLIER COMMENTS - THE FEEBLE STATE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
John Chuckman
OBJECTIONS TO JOE BIDEN - A CONSOLIDATION OF POINTS FROM SEVERAL EARLIER COMMENTS
“His nice smile just won’t do it.”
I think the Democrats have backed themselves into a corner with Joe Biden.
Here are just some of the objections to him as a candidate. I definitely believe he would be Trump's own choice as an opponent.
Perhaps, there's a secret plan to substitute someone else at the last moment?
Or is it that the Democratic establishment just so despises politicians like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard that they would rather lose the election than give one of them a fair chance for the nomination?
Biden is a man who is able to generate no excitement or enthusiasm. He’s a place-filler. A political apparatchik with a nice smile.
Biden can display quite a nasty temper in public at times. He angrily told a worker at a plant in Michigan recently that he was “a horse’s ass and full of shit.”
Perhaps Biden’s most dangerous view is about Russia. He is quoted as saying, “[I regard Russia as] an adversary or even an enemy,” a tired repetition of the warmongering Pentagon attitude. He also repeats the completely unproven claim that Russia works to “subvert democracies in western Europe and the United States.” They are views right from the CIA playbook, dishonest and dangerous, intended to promote strife and hostility.
He consistently supported wars and coups through his career. He worked closely with Obama on carrying some of them out. He served as Obama’s proconsul in Ukraine for a coup against an elected government.
That very much included America’s support for Ukraine’s ugly Azov Battalion – an absolutely neo-Nazi outfit with swastika-like armbands and torchlight parades and hate-filled speeches – which serves to intimidate any elected government, including the current one, from straying too far from the right path, the one chosen by America. There are photos of Biden with a big smile on his face shaking hands with Azov Battalion leader, Oleh Tyahnybok.
All the wars and coups, of course, involve deceit about what is actually taking place. So, Biden has had a lot of practice with avoiding truth.
Biden has an unpleasant habit of pawing women, including young girls, at many public events, something attested to by many easily-found photographs on the Internet.
Biden’s 1988 Presidential campaign effort was embarrassingly ended by the clearest evidence of his having plagiarized the speeches of British Labour Party politician Neil Kinnock. He also plagiarized Bobby Kennedy.
Biden supported Bill Clinton’s most conservative policies, including “the end to welfare in our time.”
Biden actually said of Obama in 2007, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Biden voted to overturn the Glass-Steagall Act, an important Roosevelt-era law which protected insured consumer bank deposits from the predation of investment banking.
Biden opposed school integration through bussing in the 1970s, and he was asked to speak at the funeral of Strom Thurmond, unrepentant southern racist politician, in 2003, and he did so.
For years, Biden described the driver of the truck which killed his first wife and daughter in 1972, as a drunk, saying things like, “He drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch.” He was not. The official investigation found the truck driver completely innocent. The driver’s family, obviously exposed to great anguish, pleaded with Biden to stop, but he would not, even after the unfortunate driver died.
Biden has the same annoying tendency as Hillary Clinton of just suddenly blurting out some claim about his past that’s just complete fiction, as his recent claim about being arrested when trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison decades ago. It resembled Hillary’s proven-false claim about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia.
He has done that kind of thing many times, including a story about being asked to award a Silver Star to a heroic soldier in Afghanistan, an event which never happened. Again, he claimed he always opposed the invasion of Iraq when just the opposite was the case, he is remembered as an enthusiastic supporter, and an early one.
That kind of story-telling isn’t about the failings of old age. It represents an inherent mental or psychological problem, the need to present yourself to others as being at the center of events. It’s almost a version of Munchausen’s syndrome.
Now, he shows another kind of forgetfulness which many openly describe as the onset of senility, an example being the recent introduction of his wife as his sister.
He’s a man with a rather shabby political record. Everything from his lousy treatment of Anita Hill decades ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee to his advocacy with Obama for extrajudicial killing on an industrial scale by the CIA.
Anita Hill was a credible, calm, and well-spoken witness. But under Biden, she was put through ugly and embarrassing questioning. Anita Hill was treated as a wrong-doer rather than as a witness against one. It was Joe Biden rushing to save the Washington establishment from embarrassment over a poor Supreme Court nomination.
The industrial-scale killing program for which Biden advocated sees someone’s name put on a “kill list” by an anonymous CIA thug. The person listed is afterwards incinerated by a missile controlled by another CIA thug playing real-life computer games in a secret basement or warehouse.
The regard for rule of law is just touching. As is the humanity.
Biden kicked off his current campaign with an exploitative advertising film, featuring the sad violent events at Charlottesville, Virginia, setting himself up pretentiously as doing “battle for the soul of this nation,” to contrast with Trump’s widely criticized statement about the “moral equivalence” between neo-Nazis and anti-fascists.
Biden’s characterization of himself would be hard enough to accept on its own, but Biden never had the decency to ask the mother of the dead woman, Heather Heyer, killed at Charlottesville, whether it would be okay to use the event in his political advertising.
Apart from quirks and shabbiness, his whole political career has been undistinguished, just sitting-on-the-fence establishment, never having created anything new or valuable, but always looking for an opportunity to advance himself.
I just can’t imagine how they are going to prevent some aspects of his behavior in Ukraine from surfacing. Ukraine itself might have incentive for providing evidence to ingratiate itself with Trump.
At the very least, and something we know without additional evidence, Biden’s behavior as Obama’s proconsul to the new coup-installed government of Ukraine included effectively taking a large bribe, one in the form of the appointment of his son to a company director’s position.
His son, Hunter, was completely unqualified for the position. He had no industry contacts or influence. It was in an industry about which he knew nothing, and it concerned a country whose language he could not even speak. He received, for years, an unheard-of salary (for directors of companies) of $50 thousand dollars per month.
Out of 330 million people, Biden and Trump are the best candidates America’s two national political parties can come up with? Simply unbelievable, but it is an excellent measure of the feeble state of American democracy.
SMALL ADDITIONAL NOTE:
It has just been revealed by a female Secret Service officer that Biden, whether at home or away, always swims in the nude.
It was very uncomfortable for female agents assigned to protect him, and indeed no one wanted to be assigned to his protection.
OBJECTIONS TO JOE BIDEN - A CONSOLIDATION OF POINTS FROM SEVERAL EARLIER COMMENTS
“His nice smile just won’t do it.”
I think the Democrats have backed themselves into a corner with Joe Biden.
Here are just some of the objections to him as a candidate. I definitely believe he would be Trump's own choice as an opponent.
Perhaps, there's a secret plan to substitute someone else at the last moment?
Or is it that the Democratic establishment just so despises politicians like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard that they would rather lose the election than give one of them a fair chance for the nomination?
Biden is a man who is able to generate no excitement or enthusiasm. He’s a place-filler. A political apparatchik with a nice smile.
Biden can display quite a nasty temper in public at times. He angrily told a worker at a plant in Michigan recently that he was “a horse’s ass and full of shit.”
Perhaps Biden’s most dangerous view is about Russia. He is quoted as saying, “[I regard Russia as] an adversary or even an enemy,” a tired repetition of the warmongering Pentagon attitude. He also repeats the completely unproven claim that Russia works to “subvert democracies in western Europe and the United States.” They are views right from the CIA playbook, dishonest and dangerous, intended to promote strife and hostility.
He consistently supported wars and coups through his career. He worked closely with Obama on carrying some of them out. He served as Obama’s proconsul in Ukraine for a coup against an elected government.
That very much included America’s support for Ukraine’s ugly Azov Battalion – an absolutely neo-Nazi outfit with swastika-like armbands and torchlight parades and hate-filled speeches – which serves to intimidate any elected government, including the current one, from straying too far from the right path, the one chosen by America. There are photos of Biden with a big smile on his face shaking hands with Azov Battalion leader, Oleh Tyahnybok.
All the wars and coups, of course, involve deceit about what is actually taking place. So, Biden has had a lot of practice with avoiding truth.
Biden has an unpleasant habit of pawing women, including young girls, at many public events, something attested to by many easily-found photographs on the Internet.
Biden’s 1988 Presidential campaign effort was embarrassingly ended by the clearest evidence of his having plagiarized the speeches of British Labour Party politician Neil Kinnock. He also plagiarized Bobby Kennedy.
Biden supported Bill Clinton’s most conservative policies, including “the end to welfare in our time.”
Biden actually said of Obama in 2007, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Biden voted to overturn the Glass-Steagall Act, an important Roosevelt-era law which protected insured consumer bank deposits from the predation of investment banking.
Biden opposed school integration through bussing in the 1970s, and he was asked to speak at the funeral of Strom Thurmond, unrepentant southern racist politician, in 2003, and he did so.
For years, Biden described the driver of the truck which killed his first wife and daughter in 1972, as a drunk, saying things like, “He drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch.” He was not. The official investigation found the truck driver completely innocent. The driver’s family, obviously exposed to great anguish, pleaded with Biden to stop, but he would not, even after the unfortunate driver died.
Biden has the same annoying tendency as Hillary Clinton of just suddenly blurting out some claim about his past that’s just complete fiction, as his recent claim about being arrested when trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison decades ago. It resembled Hillary’s proven-false claim about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia.
He has done that kind of thing many times, including a story about being asked to award a Silver Star to a heroic soldier in Afghanistan, an event which never happened. Again, he claimed he always opposed the invasion of Iraq when just the opposite was the case, he is remembered as an enthusiastic supporter, and an early one.
That kind of story-telling isn’t about the failings of old age. It represents an inherent mental or psychological problem, the need to present yourself to others as being at the center of events. It’s almost a version of Munchausen’s syndrome.
Now, he shows another kind of forgetfulness which many openly describe as the onset of senility, an example being the recent introduction of his wife as his sister.
He’s a man with a rather shabby political record. Everything from his lousy treatment of Anita Hill decades ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee to his advocacy with Obama for extrajudicial killing on an industrial scale by the CIA.
Anita Hill was a credible, calm, and well-spoken witness. But under Biden, she was put through ugly and embarrassing questioning. Anita Hill was treated as a wrong-doer rather than as a witness against one. It was Joe Biden rushing to save the Washington establishment from embarrassment over a poor Supreme Court nomination.
The industrial-scale killing program for which Biden advocated sees someone’s name put on a “kill list” by an anonymous CIA thug. The person listed is afterwards incinerated by a missile controlled by another CIA thug playing real-life computer games in a secret basement or warehouse.
The regard for rule of law is just touching. As is the humanity.
Biden kicked off his current campaign with an exploitative advertising film, featuring the sad violent events at Charlottesville, Virginia, setting himself up pretentiously as doing “battle for the soul of this nation,” to contrast with Trump’s widely criticized statement about the “moral equivalence” between neo-Nazis and anti-fascists.
Biden’s characterization of himself would be hard enough to accept on its own, but Biden never had the decency to ask the mother of the dead woman, Heather Heyer, killed at Charlottesville, whether it would be okay to use the event in his political advertising.
Apart from quirks and shabbiness, his whole political career has been undistinguished, just sitting-on-the-fence establishment, never having created anything new or valuable, but always looking for an opportunity to advance himself.
I just can’t imagine how they are going to prevent some aspects of his behavior in Ukraine from surfacing. Ukraine itself might have incentive for providing evidence to ingratiate itself with Trump.
At the very least, and something we know without additional evidence, Biden’s behavior as Obama’s proconsul to the new coup-installed government of Ukraine included effectively taking a large bribe, one in the form of the appointment of his son to a company director’s position.
His son, Hunter, was completely unqualified for the position. He had no industry contacts or influence. It was in an industry about which he knew nothing, and it concerned a country whose language he could not even speak. He received, for years, an unheard-of salary (for directors of companies) of $50 thousand dollars per month.
Out of 330 million people, Biden and Trump are the best candidates America’s two national political parties can come up with? Simply unbelievable, but it is an excellent measure of the feeble state of American democracy.
SMALL ADDITIONAL NOTE:
It has just been revealed by a female Secret Service officer that Biden, whether at home or away, always swims in the nude.
It was very uncomfortable for female agents assigned to protect him, and indeed no one wanted to be assigned to his protection.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE DOWNING OF FLIGHT MH17 IN 2014 OVER UKRAINE RETURNS TO THE NEWS WITH THE QUESTIONABLE TRIAL OF (ABSENT) SUSPECTS AFTER A SHAMEFULLY LONG AND DEFINITELY INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION - TWO KEY FACTS HAVE DRIVEN MY SUSPICIONS FROM THE START BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER UNEXPLAINED DETAILS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY HANS VOGEL IN PRAVDA
“There is No Business Like Show Business: the MH17 Trial in Holland”
There were a couple of striking facts which convinced me early on that we were not being given the truth about the downing of Flight MH17. Those facts still have not been explained
First, in early wreckage photos, there were some precisely-round holes in the cockpit area of the fuselage, including at least one in the metal frame of a pilot’s seat. They could not have been made by a missile. There had to have been cannon fire, as from a jet fighter. There were other holes, too, raggedy ones, so a missile likely was also fired.
Second, the United States never offered photos or data from its fleet of Keyhole spy satellites which have cameras almost the quality of the Space Telescope. Or any radar tracks. Yet we know both must exist.
Readers might enjoy this earlier exploration:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/john-chuckman-comment-latest-installment-of-the-years-long-foot-dragging-investigation-into-the-downing-of-flight-mh-17-over-ukraine-raises-old-concerns/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY HANS VOGEL IN PRAVDA
“There is No Business Like Show Business: the MH17 Trial in Holland”
There were a couple of striking facts which convinced me early on that we were not being given the truth about the downing of Flight MH17. Those facts still have not been explained
First, in early wreckage photos, there were some precisely-round holes in the cockpit area of the fuselage, including at least one in the metal frame of a pilot’s seat. They could not have been made by a missile. There had to have been cannon fire, as from a jet fighter. There were other holes, too, raggedy ones, so a missile likely was also fired.
Second, the United States never offered photos or data from its fleet of Keyhole spy satellites which have cameras almost the quality of the Space Telescope. Or any radar tracks. Yet we know both must exist.
Readers might enjoy this earlier exploration:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/john-chuckman-comment-latest-installment-of-the-years-long-foot-dragging-investigation-into-the-downing-of-flight-mh-17-over-ukraine-raises-old-concerns/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: PUTIN MAY RUN AGAIN FOR OFFICE IN 2024 DESPITE TERM LIMITS IN THE NEW RUSSIAN CONSTITUTION HE SUPPORTS - AND WE ALL HAVE GOOD REASON TO BE GLAD
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN ANTI-EMPIRE (FORMERLY CHECKPOINT ASIA)
“Did Putin Get Tereshkova [Russian legislator and former Cosmonaut] to Clear a Path [by relaxing application of term limit in the constitution] for Him to Stand for Reelection in 2024?”
It really doesn't matter.
Considering the many serious threats and risks on the horizon - weak world economy, coronavirus pandemic, US aggression on many fronts, Turkish aggression in Syria - I'm inclined to think Ms. Tereshkova is right. Putin has shown himself to be the most skilful statesman of his day - far-sighted, calm, practical, undogmatic, excellent at selecting key staff, working hard to keep good relations in the world, and possessing a deep genuine regard for the welfare of his country.
I do think the world has been very fortunate in having both Putin and Xi at a challenging time, and I think it is likely to become even more challenging. The US is being run by truly dangerous people, and I don't mean only Trump.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN ANTI-EMPIRE (FORMERLY CHECKPOINT ASIA)
“Did Putin Get Tereshkova [Russian legislator and former Cosmonaut] to Clear a Path [by relaxing application of term limit in the constitution] for Him to Stand for Reelection in 2024?”
It really doesn't matter.
Considering the many serious threats and risks on the horizon - weak world economy, coronavirus pandemic, US aggression on many fronts, Turkish aggression in Syria - I'm inclined to think Ms. Tereshkova is right. Putin has shown himself to be the most skilful statesman of his day - far-sighted, calm, practical, undogmatic, excellent at selecting key staff, working hard to keep good relations in the world, and possessing a deep genuine regard for the welfare of his country.
I do think the world has been very fortunate in having both Putin and Xi at a challenging time, and I think it is likely to become even more challenging. The US is being run by truly dangerous people, and I don't mean only Trump.
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CHINA FINALLY GIVEN SOME CREDIT FOR ITS IMMENSE AND COSTLY EFFORT IN FIGHTING CORONAVIRUS - I BELIEVE IT HAS THE VIRUS BEATEN - SO WHO SHOULD JUSTIN TRUDEAU GET ADVICE FROM? THE EMBARRASSINGLY IGNORANT TRUMP OR XI'S CAPABLE PEOPLE - TROUBLE IS TRUDEAU HAS STUPIDLY DESTROYED OUR PREVIOUSLY EXCELLENT RELATIONS WITH CHINA TO PLEASE TRUMP
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Coronavirus upends life in Italy as China vows to defeat epidemic
“Chinese President Xi Jinping's trip to the central city of Wuhan …was the latest sign that China is edging back toward normalcy after weeks of extreme quarantine measures. China reported just 19 new infections Tuesday, down from thousands each day last month.”
Glad to see a few positive words about China.
They have done a tremendous job and at great cost.
They have now removed all three of the massive temporary hospitals they quickly and almost miraculously built.
And for the nation's leader to visit the very center of the outbreak is remarkable.
They are confident they have the virus beaten. and I believe they are right.
So, from whom do you think Trudeau should be seeking advice?
Trump, the man who has made a whole series of what are widely recognized as uninformed statements or Xi's experts?
Well, the complete tatters into which Trudeau has put Canadian-Chinese relations for well over a year do make things difficult, as does his distressing embrace of Trump’s ghastly policies and sentiments almost everywhere else in the world.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Coronavirus upends life in Italy as China vows to defeat epidemic
“Chinese President Xi Jinping's trip to the central city of Wuhan …was the latest sign that China is edging back toward normalcy after weeks of extreme quarantine measures. China reported just 19 new infections Tuesday, down from thousands each day last month.”
Glad to see a few positive words about China.
They have done a tremendous job and at great cost.
They have now removed all three of the massive temporary hospitals they quickly and almost miraculously built.
And for the nation's leader to visit the very center of the outbreak is remarkable.
They are confident they have the virus beaten. and I believe they are right.
So, from whom do you think Trudeau should be seeking advice?
Trump, the man who has made a whole series of what are widely recognized as uninformed statements or Xi's experts?
Well, the complete tatters into which Trudeau has put Canadian-Chinese relations for well over a year do make things difficult, as does his distressing embrace of Trump’s ghastly policies and sentiments almost everywhere else in the world.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SOME ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY JOE BIDEN IS COMPLETELY UNSUITABLE TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S CANDIDATE
John Chuckman
COMMENT – ADDITIONAL ANECDOTES ON JOE BIDEN’S CAREER SHOWING HIS COMPLETE UNSUITABILITY TO BE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Biden has a habit of pawing women, including young girls, at many public events, something attested to by many easily-found photographs on the Internet.
Biden’s 1988 Presidential campaign effort was embarrassingly ended by evidence of his having plagiarized speeches of British Labour Party politician Neil Kinnock. He also plagiarized Bobby Kennedy.
Biden supported Bill Clinton’s most conservative policies, including an “end to welfare in our time.”
Biden actually said of Obama in 2007, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Biden voted to overturn the Glass-Steagall Act, an important Roosevelt era law which protected insured consumer deposits from the predation of investment banking.
Biden opposed school integration through bussing in the 1970s, and he was asked to speak at the funeral of Strom Thurmond, unrepentant southern racist politician, in 2003, which he did.
For years, Biden described the driver of the truck which killed his first wife and daughter in 1972, as a drunk, saying things like, “He drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch.” He was not. The official investigation found the truck driver completely innocent. The driver’s family, obviously exposed to great anguish, pleaded with Biden to stop, but he would not, even after the unfortunate driver died.
Perhaps Biden’s most dangerous view is about Russia. He is quoted as saying, “[I regard Russia as] an adversary or even an enemy,” a tired repetition of the warmongering Pentagon attitude. He also repeats the completely unproven claim that Russia works to “subvert democracies in western Europe and the United States.”
Out of 330 million people, the best the two national parties can come up with is Biden and Trump, neither of whom is entirely rational.
COMMENT – ADDITIONAL ANECDOTES ON JOE BIDEN’S CAREER SHOWING HIS COMPLETE UNSUITABILITY TO BE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Biden has a habit of pawing women, including young girls, at many public events, something attested to by many easily-found photographs on the Internet.
Biden’s 1988 Presidential campaign effort was embarrassingly ended by evidence of his having plagiarized speeches of British Labour Party politician Neil Kinnock. He also plagiarized Bobby Kennedy.
Biden supported Bill Clinton’s most conservative policies, including an “end to welfare in our time.”
Biden actually said of Obama in 2007, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Biden voted to overturn the Glass-Steagall Act, an important Roosevelt era law which protected insured consumer deposits from the predation of investment banking.
Biden opposed school integration through bussing in the 1970s, and he was asked to speak at the funeral of Strom Thurmond, unrepentant southern racist politician, in 2003, which he did.
For years, Biden described the driver of the truck which killed his first wife and daughter in 1972, as a drunk, saying things like, “He drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch.” He was not. The official investigation found the truck driver completely innocent. The driver’s family, obviously exposed to great anguish, pleaded with Biden to stop, but he would not, even after the unfortunate driver died.
Perhaps Biden’s most dangerous view is about Russia. He is quoted as saying, “[I regard Russia as] an adversary or even an enemy,” a tired repetition of the warmongering Pentagon attitude. He also repeats the completely unproven claim that Russia works to “subvert democracies in western Europe and the United States.”
Out of 330 million people, the best the two national parties can come up with is Biden and Trump, neither of whom is entirely rational.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CANADA'S PETER MACKAY, CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADERSHIP CANDIDATE, MAKES GOOD SENSE AT LEAST ABOUT PROVEN SPENDTHRIFT JUSTIN TRUDEAU'S EXTREME CARBON-TAX POLICIES
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
"Peter MacKay's claim that our emissions [carbon dioxide] total is 'minuscule' doesn't really work as an excuse for inaction [MacKay is a candidate for the Conservative Party’s leadership]"
I am not a Peter MacKay fan, at all, but his perspective on this matter is sound. Canada is responsible for 1.6 % of global green house gas emissions.
Trade-offs must be considered in every major act of government. It’s something we all do in our private lives.
Resources are always limited, and we need to commit them to where they will do the most for us.
If Canada cannot make a significant contribution to climate change, it is just foolish to commit great resources towards it, as Justin Trudeau intends.
We impoverish ourselves that way relative to other countries.
And of course, that assumes that carbon dioxide is even the cause of climate change.
Some good brains say that it is not.
Is it sensible for the entire planet to start a costly crusade against something we do not completely understand?
And the fact is that a great part of the planet is not joining this crusade.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
"Peter MacKay's claim that our emissions [carbon dioxide] total is 'minuscule' doesn't really work as an excuse for inaction [MacKay is a candidate for the Conservative Party’s leadership]"
I am not a Peter MacKay fan, at all, but his perspective on this matter is sound. Canada is responsible for 1.6 % of global green house gas emissions.
Trade-offs must be considered in every major act of government. It’s something we all do in our private lives.
Resources are always limited, and we need to commit them to where they will do the most for us.
If Canada cannot make a significant contribution to climate change, it is just foolish to commit great resources towards it, as Justin Trudeau intends.
We impoverish ourselves that way relative to other countries.
And of course, that assumes that carbon dioxide is even the cause of climate change.
Some good brains say that it is not.
Is it sensible for the entire planet to start a costly crusade against something we do not completely understand?
And the fact is that a great part of the planet is not joining this crusade.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THINK TANKS RIGHTLY CALLED "FRONTS" BY A WRITER - A WORD MUCH USED IN THE COLD WAR FOR INSTITUTIONS THE FBI THOUGHT COVERTLY SPONSORED BY THE SOVIETS FITS WELL THESE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS SPONSORED BY AMERICAN WEALTH - WHAT THEY DO - THE HUGE ELECTROMAGNETIC CLOUD OF ADVERTISING AND PROPAGANDA IN WHICH WE ARE IMMERSED
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Old Ideas in New Bottles
“A new front group preaches restraint while embracing interventionism” [Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft]
It is interesting that Philip Giraldi calls American think tanks “fronts.”
That was a term much used during the Cold War for various organizations around the world regarded by the FBI or CIA as covertly sponsored by the Soviet Union.
It works well for American think tanks, which I’ve traditionally referred to as “propaganda mills.”
Of course, that is really the job of any of them, getting out propaganda and disinformation under the guise of disinterested analysis by experts.
The experts are often given high-blown academic-sounding titles, as Senior Fellow, and an effort is made to keep the tone and appearance of an academic campus.
But the papers, books, films, and speeches of any of them are anything but disinterested. They always have a bias, with each of the many such organizations specializing in a subject or range of subjects of concern to its chief wealthy sponsor or sponsors.
I don’t understand the gullibility of Americans on the matter of think tanks. Many seem to believe that extremely wealthy people are supporting genuinely neutral analysis just for the public good. Commercial news sources – as television and radio stations and others - frequently cite think-tank output as though it offered facts. Of course, the various news media are getting free “filler” for their programs while effectively serving as megaphones for the institutions. Their citations also tend to reinforce the authority of think tanks.
Seems a naïve belief, but this is America we are talking about, the land of P. T. Barnum, Madison Avenue, and Wall Street. Why would anyone believe that extremely wealthy individuals and organizations would fork over millions of dollars a year just to advance human knowledge? Even when wealthy people do pay for a genuine academic facility or library, they want it named after themselves.
And a really ugly truth in America is that many “real” universities now are much engaged in the same business, either through an institute of some kind or more generally with the many rules and restrictions put on publication of controversial matters. The practices exist because they are profitable and to avoid offending some donor or donors.
America, where people are, for their entire lifetimes, submerged in a kind of electromagnetic cloud of advertising and propaganda of all descriptions. From selling Twinkies and military recruitment to hamburgers and candidates for office. Americans, who believed well after the terrible invasion of Iraq that they just hadn’t yet found where Saddam hid all those “weapons of mass destruction,” or, years after the holocaust of Vietnam, that the communists were still hiding American prisoners of war somewhere for some unknown dark purpose.
So just like the old CIA disinformation man who once spoke of sitting down to his “mighty Wurlitzer,” its keys representing the various cooperating commercial publications, to get “something out there,” think tanks represent another approach to doing the same thing.
The “fake news” controversy in recent years and “fact checking” operations suggest how thickly clouded over things have become, for they themselves are just new kinds of flim-flam intended to misguide or confuse. Everyone of almost any consequence in America is engaged in selling you something. Only the individual, and with considerable effort, can sort his or her way through it all.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PHILIP GIRALDI IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Old Ideas in New Bottles
“A new front group preaches restraint while embracing interventionism” [Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft]
It is interesting that Philip Giraldi calls American think tanks “fronts.”
That was a term much used during the Cold War for various organizations around the world regarded by the FBI or CIA as covertly sponsored by the Soviet Union.
It works well for American think tanks, which I’ve traditionally referred to as “propaganda mills.”
Of course, that is really the job of any of them, getting out propaganda and disinformation under the guise of disinterested analysis by experts.
The experts are often given high-blown academic-sounding titles, as Senior Fellow, and an effort is made to keep the tone and appearance of an academic campus.
But the papers, books, films, and speeches of any of them are anything but disinterested. They always have a bias, with each of the many such organizations specializing in a subject or range of subjects of concern to its chief wealthy sponsor or sponsors.
I don’t understand the gullibility of Americans on the matter of think tanks. Many seem to believe that extremely wealthy people are supporting genuinely neutral analysis just for the public good. Commercial news sources – as television and radio stations and others - frequently cite think-tank output as though it offered facts. Of course, the various news media are getting free “filler” for their programs while effectively serving as megaphones for the institutions. Their citations also tend to reinforce the authority of think tanks.
Seems a naïve belief, but this is America we are talking about, the land of P. T. Barnum, Madison Avenue, and Wall Street. Why would anyone believe that extremely wealthy individuals and organizations would fork over millions of dollars a year just to advance human knowledge? Even when wealthy people do pay for a genuine academic facility or library, they want it named after themselves.
And a really ugly truth in America is that many “real” universities now are much engaged in the same business, either through an institute of some kind or more generally with the many rules and restrictions put on publication of controversial matters. The practices exist because they are profitable and to avoid offending some donor or donors.
America, where people are, for their entire lifetimes, submerged in a kind of electromagnetic cloud of advertising and propaganda of all descriptions. From selling Twinkies and military recruitment to hamburgers and candidates for office. Americans, who believed well after the terrible invasion of Iraq that they just hadn’t yet found where Saddam hid all those “weapons of mass destruction,” or, years after the holocaust of Vietnam, that the communists were still hiding American prisoners of war somewhere for some unknown dark purpose.
So just like the old CIA disinformation man who once spoke of sitting down to his “mighty Wurlitzer,” its keys representing the various cooperating commercial publications, to get “something out there,” think tanks represent another approach to doing the same thing.
The “fake news” controversy in recent years and “fact checking” operations suggest how thickly clouded over things have become, for they themselves are just new kinds of flim-flam intended to misguide or confuse. Everyone of almost any consequence in America is engaged in selling you something. Only the individual, and with considerable effort, can sort his or her way through it all.
Sunday, March 08, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE PREVALENCE OF LYING IN AMERICA - A RATHER BOY-SCOUT APPROACH TO IT INSPIRES A RESPONSE - THE COUNTRY RESTS COMFORTABLY IN A VERY THICK WEB OF LIES COVERING ITS CONTEMPT FOR RULE OF LAW AND RUTHLESSNESS - IT NEVER ADMITS THE HORRORS IT INFLICTS ON OTHERS - DETAILS OF RECENT UGLY WORK IN UKRAINE AND VENEZUELA AND IRAN - BUT THE CLAIM IS ALWAYS MADE TO BE WORKING FOR HIGH PRINCIPLES - WHY IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE - THE VALUES YOU CULTIVATE WITH PLUTOCRACY, MILITARISM, AND EMPIRE
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LAWRENCE DAVIDSON IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Cultural Problem of Cheating & Lying”
“This is not just a lesson for parents, schools, the courts, and the marketplace. It is also a necessary lesson for our politics. But we have not managed to come up with a way to vet our leaders so as to assure their long-term honesty and integrity — a process we have been searching for since the time of Plato. Nonetheless, we should try harder…”
Yes, indeed, but I do find the piece weak and rather squishy, avoiding as it does the real source of the problem and putting things into philosophical terms of a search for ways to insure truth in American politics and in the wider society. It actually gets quite preachy, but preaching doesn’t change the real political economy of a huge state, and, indeed, I think it effectively offers a kind false hope to hide behind.
A little like the people in America who periodically stand in a crowd on a hillside with their arms outstretched in a kind of supplication, waiting for the Second Coming. They are sincere, to be sure, I have no doubt, but their efforts are utterly pointless since they ignore science and the realities of the human condition.
There are bricks-and-mortar causes for the ailments of American society, and if you refuse to deal with those, you are in a very real sense lying to yourself and just adding to the total volume of American lying.
Given America’s empire and the vast and costly military/security services supporting it, I don't think there is any option but for leaders to lie, and doing so almost continuously. The emergence of American plutocracy, which is what the empire serves, and money-driven politics at home are at the heart of the problem.
Can America's leaders in Washington openly admit that they are starving children and depriving the sick of medicine in Iran and Venezuela and were working to do the same in Bolivia and still other places?
Even the ugliest, most powerful government officials or the plutocrats they serve do not happily take public credit for such grim acts. So, lying and cheating just become built into the society at the highest level. Almost everyone, no matter how malevolent their intentions and actions, wants at least a veneer of respectability, credit for worthy motives. Only the genuine psychopaths, of which America has more than a few in powerful positions because they are useful, are likely to want such credit, much like credit for scalps on display.
So, destroying someone else’s elected government invariably is transformed into fighting for democratic values. Venezuela’s unelected Guaido, absurdly swearing himself in as President without ever running for election and financing his activities with American intelligence agency funds as well as American-appropriated Venezuelan national assets, becomes the hope for democracy over the party of twice-elected Maduro and his thrice-elected predecessor, Chavez.
Again, except for the scalphunters, who would want credit for shutting down Venezuela's electricity grid several times so that millions of poor ordinary people likely lost the food in their fridges? And many life-sustaining machines stopped working?
Such are the realities of empire. And there are just so very many examples, the story of Ukraine being a prominent and tragic one in recent years.
According to the delightful Victoria Nuland, a high State Department official who was overheard at the time, America spent five billion dollars on the coup in Ukraine, doing absolutely nothing for Ukraine's people, overthrowing an elected government, and indeed wrecking the country in many ways. All done just to threaten the security interests of Russia along a huge border. Needless violence and intimidation, with plenty of killing along the way.
Parts of Ukraine seceded under the unpleasant language and cultural policies of the coup-installed government, and I think it pretty unlikely they will ever return. Thousands died in an unnecessary civil war over the matter. Great numbers of people sought work in other parts of Europe as the Ukrainian economy literally collapsed under a corrupt and incompetent American-installed administration.
Versions of neo-Nazism now openly flourish in Ukraine because the groups’ capacity to intimidate the government is useful in preventing any turning back to rational policies. Such groups, some subsidized by the State Department or American security services, threaten the government into not making reasonable concessions for peace.
Incidentally, Joe Biden, in his then role as presidential proconsul to Ukraine, assisting the coup government in getting things right – “right” meaning the way America wants them - was photographed warmly shaking hands with the commander of one such group, the Azov Battalion, a group whose marches much resemble those of Hitler’s Brownshirts of the 1930s.
The post-coup Ukrainian military demonstrated gross incompetence. Despite its far greater numbers and resources, it had poor leadership and lack of motivation and managed only to kill thousands of civilians in breakaway Eastern Ukraine. Its efforts to draft soldiers in Western Ukraine to send to fight in Eastern Ukraine resulted in embarrassingly high levels of running from the draft.
And all the previous coup government leader, Poroshenko, could talk about was how the Russians were invading and how brave Ukrainian soldiers were preventing Europe from being invaded. Absolutely absurd stuff, but our press and politicians credited it as truth. Somehow, with all such claims, the hi-tech, unarguable evidence of America’s fleets of spy satellites and sophisticated radars just manages to disappear. America would in fact know in a heartbeat if Russia invaded Ukraine, and it would not sit silently watching it happen.
So, we not only have thick clots of lies, we have the government of the United States treating us all as though we were totally ignorant of the realities of around-the-clock surveillance.
Perhaps the most grotesque aspect of Ukraine’s post-coup military operations was the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, either in error or deliberately, an event which launched an industrial-sized cover-up with a shameless investigation which never even bothered to collect all the evidence, pieces of the plane and contents still being easily discovered in the region where it crashed. If you study the case, there are many powerful reasons for believing the Ukrainian military shot down the airliner with fighter planes, but imagine the risk to America’s five-billion-dollar coup investment if the truth had been broadcast right away? So, years of throwing dust in people’s eyes began, and now the matter is almost forgotten. And, again, no American satellite images or radar tracks were ever produced.
We have ugly stunt after ugly stunt - such as the infamous Skripal Affair of two years ago in Britain - done merely to hurt the interests of those America does not like. Truth is impossible, and the lying goes beyond all normal bounds to become a massive network of distortions, all dutifully attested to at the highest levels of government and by the corporate press which of course always serves the government which has so regulatory powers over it.
It was after all, Hitler himself in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf, who propounded the concept of “the Big Lie.” It proved a highly successful idea, and tyrants and seekers-after-power have never stopped employing it since.
That is the very nature of empire, and there is no escaping it. It is impossible to behave the way America does and not lie about it, massively and continuously.
I've said it many times, but there’s no shame in repeating such an important truth: you can either have a decent country or you can have an empire, but you cannot have both.
The infrastructure of empire is built on threats, oppression, subversion, coups, dishonesty, and no shortage of violence.
And there is always an underlying assumption that a relatively small number of people in the United States are somehow entitled to tell the other more than 95% of humanity how they are to run their affairs. Are you not implicitly lying about your democratic and human-rights values when you do that? Of course, it isn’t America’s roughly 5% of the world’s people making the claim, it’s a tiny fraction of that, the highly privileged.
There's no way the establishment politicians in Washington - including the best Congress money can buy - can one day just take a kind of Boy Scout Oath to reform things. Believing that goes beyond naïve to asinine.
Fundamental change is required – including basic matters like a tax structure which supports the creation of plutocracy and the grotesque role of money in politics - but I don’t think Americans are prepared to undertake it, and perhaps they are not even able to do so, given the establishment’s powerful tools of self-defense.
Right now, the Democratic Party is working to shut out Bernie Sanders, and it has already pretty much shut out Tulsi Gabbard, yet neither of those two admirable politicians is even advocating large-scale change. That’s a good measure of how risk-averse America’s establishment is.
The other half of America’s money-controlled political duopoly, the Republican Party, supports a foul-mouthed madman who brags about stealing. Why? Because he vigorously continues the good work of imposing America’s will on the planet, and he actively works to hurt those who are going to become important parts of a very different future, as China and Russia.
Well, I believe sadly that America is stuck right where it is until larger events overtake it and the now-emerging multi-polar world becomes the dominant reality.
MAGA will be seen as a museum relic, like some Shaman’s pathetic talisman, representing futile efforts by America to claw its way back to where it was seventy years ago, pretty much king of the world.
Either that, or it is not impossible at all for genuine widespread and destructive war to emerge from America’s present global hostilities almost everywhere.
After all, what do bullies do when their demands are ignored but start throwing punches or using a weapon?
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LAWRENCE DAVIDSON IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Cultural Problem of Cheating & Lying”
“This is not just a lesson for parents, schools, the courts, and the marketplace. It is also a necessary lesson for our politics. But we have not managed to come up with a way to vet our leaders so as to assure their long-term honesty and integrity — a process we have been searching for since the time of Plato. Nonetheless, we should try harder…”
Yes, indeed, but I do find the piece weak and rather squishy, avoiding as it does the real source of the problem and putting things into philosophical terms of a search for ways to insure truth in American politics and in the wider society. It actually gets quite preachy, but preaching doesn’t change the real political economy of a huge state, and, indeed, I think it effectively offers a kind false hope to hide behind.
A little like the people in America who periodically stand in a crowd on a hillside with their arms outstretched in a kind of supplication, waiting for the Second Coming. They are sincere, to be sure, I have no doubt, but their efforts are utterly pointless since they ignore science and the realities of the human condition.
There are bricks-and-mortar causes for the ailments of American society, and if you refuse to deal with those, you are in a very real sense lying to yourself and just adding to the total volume of American lying.
Given America’s empire and the vast and costly military/security services supporting it, I don't think there is any option but for leaders to lie, and doing so almost continuously. The emergence of American plutocracy, which is what the empire serves, and money-driven politics at home are at the heart of the problem.
Can America's leaders in Washington openly admit that they are starving children and depriving the sick of medicine in Iran and Venezuela and were working to do the same in Bolivia and still other places?
Even the ugliest, most powerful government officials or the plutocrats they serve do not happily take public credit for such grim acts. So, lying and cheating just become built into the society at the highest level. Almost everyone, no matter how malevolent their intentions and actions, wants at least a veneer of respectability, credit for worthy motives. Only the genuine psychopaths, of which America has more than a few in powerful positions because they are useful, are likely to want such credit, much like credit for scalps on display.
So, destroying someone else’s elected government invariably is transformed into fighting for democratic values. Venezuela’s unelected Guaido, absurdly swearing himself in as President without ever running for election and financing his activities with American intelligence agency funds as well as American-appropriated Venezuelan national assets, becomes the hope for democracy over the party of twice-elected Maduro and his thrice-elected predecessor, Chavez.
Again, except for the scalphunters, who would want credit for shutting down Venezuela's electricity grid several times so that millions of poor ordinary people likely lost the food in their fridges? And many life-sustaining machines stopped working?
Such are the realities of empire. And there are just so very many examples, the story of Ukraine being a prominent and tragic one in recent years.
According to the delightful Victoria Nuland, a high State Department official who was overheard at the time, America spent five billion dollars on the coup in Ukraine, doing absolutely nothing for Ukraine's people, overthrowing an elected government, and indeed wrecking the country in many ways. All done just to threaten the security interests of Russia along a huge border. Needless violence and intimidation, with plenty of killing along the way.
Parts of Ukraine seceded under the unpleasant language and cultural policies of the coup-installed government, and I think it pretty unlikely they will ever return. Thousands died in an unnecessary civil war over the matter. Great numbers of people sought work in other parts of Europe as the Ukrainian economy literally collapsed under a corrupt and incompetent American-installed administration.
Versions of neo-Nazism now openly flourish in Ukraine because the groups’ capacity to intimidate the government is useful in preventing any turning back to rational policies. Such groups, some subsidized by the State Department or American security services, threaten the government into not making reasonable concessions for peace.
Incidentally, Joe Biden, in his then role as presidential proconsul to Ukraine, assisting the coup government in getting things right – “right” meaning the way America wants them - was photographed warmly shaking hands with the commander of one such group, the Azov Battalion, a group whose marches much resemble those of Hitler’s Brownshirts of the 1930s.
The post-coup Ukrainian military demonstrated gross incompetence. Despite its far greater numbers and resources, it had poor leadership and lack of motivation and managed only to kill thousands of civilians in breakaway Eastern Ukraine. Its efforts to draft soldiers in Western Ukraine to send to fight in Eastern Ukraine resulted in embarrassingly high levels of running from the draft.
And all the previous coup government leader, Poroshenko, could talk about was how the Russians were invading and how brave Ukrainian soldiers were preventing Europe from being invaded. Absolutely absurd stuff, but our press and politicians credited it as truth. Somehow, with all such claims, the hi-tech, unarguable evidence of America’s fleets of spy satellites and sophisticated radars just manages to disappear. America would in fact know in a heartbeat if Russia invaded Ukraine, and it would not sit silently watching it happen.
So, we not only have thick clots of lies, we have the government of the United States treating us all as though we were totally ignorant of the realities of around-the-clock surveillance.
Perhaps the most grotesque aspect of Ukraine’s post-coup military operations was the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, either in error or deliberately, an event which launched an industrial-sized cover-up with a shameless investigation which never even bothered to collect all the evidence, pieces of the plane and contents still being easily discovered in the region where it crashed. If you study the case, there are many powerful reasons for believing the Ukrainian military shot down the airliner with fighter planes, but imagine the risk to America’s five-billion-dollar coup investment if the truth had been broadcast right away? So, years of throwing dust in people’s eyes began, and now the matter is almost forgotten. And, again, no American satellite images or radar tracks were ever produced.
We have ugly stunt after ugly stunt - such as the infamous Skripal Affair of two years ago in Britain - done merely to hurt the interests of those America does not like. Truth is impossible, and the lying goes beyond all normal bounds to become a massive network of distortions, all dutifully attested to at the highest levels of government and by the corporate press which of course always serves the government which has so regulatory powers over it.
It was after all, Hitler himself in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf, who propounded the concept of “the Big Lie.” It proved a highly successful idea, and tyrants and seekers-after-power have never stopped employing it since.
That is the very nature of empire, and there is no escaping it. It is impossible to behave the way America does and not lie about it, massively and continuously.
I've said it many times, but there’s no shame in repeating such an important truth: you can either have a decent country or you can have an empire, but you cannot have both.
The infrastructure of empire is built on threats, oppression, subversion, coups, dishonesty, and no shortage of violence.
And there is always an underlying assumption that a relatively small number of people in the United States are somehow entitled to tell the other more than 95% of humanity how they are to run their affairs. Are you not implicitly lying about your democratic and human-rights values when you do that? Of course, it isn’t America’s roughly 5% of the world’s people making the claim, it’s a tiny fraction of that, the highly privileged.
There's no way the establishment politicians in Washington - including the best Congress money can buy - can one day just take a kind of Boy Scout Oath to reform things. Believing that goes beyond naïve to asinine.
Fundamental change is required – including basic matters like a tax structure which supports the creation of plutocracy and the grotesque role of money in politics - but I don’t think Americans are prepared to undertake it, and perhaps they are not even able to do so, given the establishment’s powerful tools of self-defense.
Right now, the Democratic Party is working to shut out Bernie Sanders, and it has already pretty much shut out Tulsi Gabbard, yet neither of those two admirable politicians is even advocating large-scale change. That’s a good measure of how risk-averse America’s establishment is.
The other half of America’s money-controlled political duopoly, the Republican Party, supports a foul-mouthed madman who brags about stealing. Why? Because he vigorously continues the good work of imposing America’s will on the planet, and he actively works to hurt those who are going to become important parts of a very different future, as China and Russia.
Well, I believe sadly that America is stuck right where it is until larger events overtake it and the now-emerging multi-polar world becomes the dominant reality.
MAGA will be seen as a museum relic, like some Shaman’s pathetic talisman, representing futile efforts by America to claw its way back to where it was seventy years ago, pretty much king of the world.
Either that, or it is not impossible at all for genuine widespread and destructive war to emerge from America’s present global hostilities almost everywhere.
After all, what do bullies do when their demands are ignored but start throwing punches or using a weapon?
Saturday, March 07, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AN AUTHOR RATHER NAIVELY ASKS WHY DOESN'T MACRON'S FRANCE OFFER ASYLUM TO JULIAN ASSANGE - HERE'S WHY
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PEPE ESCOBAR IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Macron Should Offer Asylum to Assange - He Has Everything to Gain from Doing So, and Little to Lose"
Little to lose?
How about what he would gain? The intense hostility of Trump and the entire Washington power establishment, from Senators to CIA and the Pentagon.
And I do believe that would be accompanied by some serious losses of one kind or another.
Macron, who just about crawls on his belly around Trump is supposed to do that?
Isn't the author supposed to offer analysis in such matters, not pleasant daydreams?
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PEPE ESCOBAR IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"Macron Should Offer Asylum to Assange - He Has Everything to Gain from Doing So, and Little to Lose"
Little to lose?
How about what he would gain? The intense hostility of Trump and the entire Washington power establishment, from Senators to CIA and the Pentagon.
And I do believe that would be accompanied by some serious losses of one kind or another.
Macron, who just about crawls on his belly around Trump is supposed to do that?
Isn't the author supposed to offer analysis in such matters, not pleasant daydreams?
Friday, March 06, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WE KNOW THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT HAS PLOTTED AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS - BUT IT DOES NO GOOD TO RUN A CANDIDATE SUCH AS BIDEN WHO IS LIKELY TO LOSE TO TRUMP - IS THERE A SECRET PLAN CONCERNING A DIVIDED CONVENTION? - THE POSSIBLE ROLE OF THE MOST ADMIRED WOMAN IN AMERICA, MICHELLE OBAMA, WHO IS FAR MORE ELECTABLE THAN BIDEN
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
"If Trump could pick the Democratic Party nominee, he'd pick Biden"
I couldn't agree more.
Biden is a man who is able to generate no excitement or enthusiasm. He’s a place-filler. And a very temporary-looking one, given both his age and feeble behaviors.
He’s also a man with a rather shabby political record. Everything from his lousy treatment of Anita Hill decades ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee to his advocacy with Obama for extrajudicial killing on an industrial scale by the CIA.
I just can't imagine how they are going to prevent some aspects of his behavior in Ukraine from surfacing. Ukraine itself might have incentive for providing evidence to ingratiate itself with Trump.
At the very least, and something we know without additional evidence, Biden’s behavior as Obama’s proconsul to the new coup-installed government of Ukraine included effectively taking a large bribe, one in the form of the appointment of his son to a company director’s position.
His son, Hunter, was completely unqualified for the position. He had no industry contacts or influence. It was in an industry about which he knew nothing, and it concerned a country whose language he could not even speak. On top of all that, he had a record as a serious drug addict. He received, for years, an unheard-of salary (for directors of companies) of $50 thousand dollars per month.
Biden also has the same annoying tendency as Hillary Clinton of just suddenly blurting out some claim about his past that’s just complete fiction, as his recent claim about being arrested when trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison decades ago. It resembled Hillary’s proven-false claim about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia.
He has done that kind of thing many times over many years, including a story about being asked to award a Silver Star to a heroic soldier in Afghanistan, an event which never happened. Again, he claimed he always opposed the invasion of Iraq when just the opposite is the case, he is remembered as an enthusiastic supporter, and an early one.
That kind of story-telling isn’t about the forgivable failings old age. It represents an inherent mental or psychological problem, the need to present yourself to others as being at the center of events. It’s almost a version of Munchausen's syndrome.
Apart from his quirks and shabbiness, his whole political career has been sitting-on-the-fence establishment, never having created anything new or valuable, but always looking for an opportunity to advance himself.
Add his newfound propensity, much commented on in the press, for making what do seem to be age-related errors and forgetfulness, such as the very recent introduction of his wife as his sister, and his nice smile just won't do it.
The Democrats are desperate, and they've put themselves in that position. There can be little doubt the party bigwigs have worked hard to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders, a man who inspires much enthusiasm among voters, and especially young voters.
And they're going to make the world desperate with four more years of the most remarkably ignorant and foul-mouthed man ever to be President.
It is possible the Democrats have a secret plan here. A writer has suggested that Michelle Obama, who ranks in polls as the most admired woman in America – yes, she does outpoll Oprah - could be waiting in the wings to save a divided convention.
While she has no qualifications, she is likable and well-spoken and carries a last name that still has luster for some Americans. She might well be able to defeat Trump, who, after all, had no qualifications when he ran. And what a delicious irony that would be, because Trump loathes anything associated with Obama.
The truth is, although we like to fool ourselves into believing otherwise, qualifications and experience no longer matter that much for the office of American President. The Dark State calls the shots on all significant matters of foreign policy and empire, and the various key party leaders do the same on domestic issues.
There is little of consequence a modern American President can truly decide, but his tone and manner and those of his appointments still do mean something for international relations, which have reached their lowest point in history under Trump.
America already has had a few “talking head” Presidents, ones who sit at the Oval Office desk smiling, make speeches with someone else’s words on a teleprompter, and sign pretty much whatever paper is placed before them by one of the “heavies.” At least this one would have a pleasant smile, and many would be happy about a woman finally being elected, and a second black American to boot. It would be widely applauded, and America just doesn’t get any applause anymore.
The object of the whole effort is to get rid of Trump, and if Michelle Obama can do it, the Democratic establishment plots will have achieved something worthwhile. While I’m fond of Bernie, as I’ve said before, his domestic programs would never be enacted by the best Congress money can buy, and there is little anyone can do to alter the affairs of empire. Those matters really are in other hands, as Trump’s many ridiculous flip-flops about Syria amply demonstrated.
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
"If Trump could pick the Democratic Party nominee, he'd pick Biden"
I couldn't agree more.
Biden is a man who is able to generate no excitement or enthusiasm. He’s a place-filler. And a very temporary-looking one, given both his age and feeble behaviors.
He’s also a man with a rather shabby political record. Everything from his lousy treatment of Anita Hill decades ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee to his advocacy with Obama for extrajudicial killing on an industrial scale by the CIA.
I just can't imagine how they are going to prevent some aspects of his behavior in Ukraine from surfacing. Ukraine itself might have incentive for providing evidence to ingratiate itself with Trump.
At the very least, and something we know without additional evidence, Biden’s behavior as Obama’s proconsul to the new coup-installed government of Ukraine included effectively taking a large bribe, one in the form of the appointment of his son to a company director’s position.
His son, Hunter, was completely unqualified for the position. He had no industry contacts or influence. It was in an industry about which he knew nothing, and it concerned a country whose language he could not even speak. On top of all that, he had a record as a serious drug addict. He received, for years, an unheard-of salary (for directors of companies) of $50 thousand dollars per month.
Biden also has the same annoying tendency as Hillary Clinton of just suddenly blurting out some claim about his past that’s just complete fiction, as his recent claim about being arrested when trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison decades ago. It resembled Hillary’s proven-false claim about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia.
He has done that kind of thing many times over many years, including a story about being asked to award a Silver Star to a heroic soldier in Afghanistan, an event which never happened. Again, he claimed he always opposed the invasion of Iraq when just the opposite is the case, he is remembered as an enthusiastic supporter, and an early one.
That kind of story-telling isn’t about the forgivable failings old age. It represents an inherent mental or psychological problem, the need to present yourself to others as being at the center of events. It’s almost a version of Munchausen's syndrome.
Apart from his quirks and shabbiness, his whole political career has been sitting-on-the-fence establishment, never having created anything new or valuable, but always looking for an opportunity to advance himself.
Add his newfound propensity, much commented on in the press, for making what do seem to be age-related errors and forgetfulness, such as the very recent introduction of his wife as his sister, and his nice smile just won't do it.
The Democrats are desperate, and they've put themselves in that position. There can be little doubt the party bigwigs have worked hard to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders, a man who inspires much enthusiasm among voters, and especially young voters.
And they're going to make the world desperate with four more years of the most remarkably ignorant and foul-mouthed man ever to be President.
It is possible the Democrats have a secret plan here. A writer has suggested that Michelle Obama, who ranks in polls as the most admired woman in America – yes, she does outpoll Oprah - could be waiting in the wings to save a divided convention.
While she has no qualifications, she is likable and well-spoken and carries a last name that still has luster for some Americans. She might well be able to defeat Trump, who, after all, had no qualifications when he ran. And what a delicious irony that would be, because Trump loathes anything associated with Obama.
The truth is, although we like to fool ourselves into believing otherwise, qualifications and experience no longer matter that much for the office of American President. The Dark State calls the shots on all significant matters of foreign policy and empire, and the various key party leaders do the same on domestic issues.
There is little of consequence a modern American President can truly decide, but his tone and manner and those of his appointments still do mean something for international relations, which have reached their lowest point in history under Trump.
America already has had a few “talking head” Presidents, ones who sit at the Oval Office desk smiling, make speeches with someone else’s words on a teleprompter, and sign pretty much whatever paper is placed before them by one of the “heavies.” At least this one would have a pleasant smile, and many would be happy about a woman finally being elected, and a second black American to boot. It would be widely applauded, and America just doesn’t get any applause anymore.
The object of the whole effort is to get rid of Trump, and if Michelle Obama can do it, the Democratic establishment plots will have achieved something worthwhile. While I’m fond of Bernie, as I’ve said before, his domestic programs would never be enacted by the best Congress money can buy, and there is little anyone can do to alter the affairs of empire. Those matters really are in other hands, as Trump’s many ridiculous flip-flops about Syria amply demonstrated.
Wednesday, March 04, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE RELATIVELY SHORT HISTORY OF THE MODERN NATION-STATE - MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY WAS DOMINATED BY POLYGLOT EMPIRES AND KINGDOMS - EARLY NATIONALISM PRODUCED DREADFUL RESULTS - A SITUATION IN AMERICA WITH UNMISTAKABLE FASCIST OVERTONES - DESPITE SETBACKS, LONG-TERM FUTURE OF "GLOBALISM" IS BRIGHT - UNAVOIDABLE POPULATION CHANGES AND MIGRATION COMING - ALL ESTABLISHED NATION-STATES ARE GOING TO LOOK AND SOUND DIFFERENT IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GUILLAUME DUROCHER IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Towards Expat Nationalism
“Technological and Psychological Factors for the Rise and Decline of the Nation-State”
It is good to keep in mind that the nation-state as we know it has no long history.
It is largely a creation of the 19th century. Many of the most familiar nations in Europe, for example, were created in that period – as Germany or Italy.
For most of history, we have had empires and kingdoms, large entities incorporating many kinds of people, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire.
For a while, extreme nationalists demanded that a given nation-state was for people of a certain ethnic identity, speaking a certain language, maybe even having a certain look and religion. This perhaps reflected lingering attitudes and hostilities from having rebelled against an old declining multi-national imperial group.
That notion, taken to its extreme, assisted ultimately in the birth of monstrosities such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
For the most part, the advanced world has moved well beyond that narrow and dangerous concept.
Israel, of course, is one of the last in the advanced world we hear still talking that way, which is a source of concern for all liberal-minded people.
The United States right now is something of an exception. There are unquestionably fascist tones in America’s contemporary political rhetoric. It is really odd when you think about it, the country being based on immigration and having been a “melting pot.”
But it has long been an undercurrent in America. The Nazi Bund was a pretty large movement in America, for example. The great journalist and writer, William L. Shirer, said once that he thought America might be the first country to go fascist voluntarily. Of course, organizations like the Klu Klux Klan and various extreme militia groups have long histories. As do fraternal organizations whose membership requires being a descendant from some early group.
Just not that many years ago, a Spanish-speaking person did a translation of America’s national anthem, and a recording of it became popular. Instead of being proud about it, certain groups of Americans became furious. There were ugly words hurled around. Even a descendent of Francis Scott Key, the man who wrote the “poem” in 1814 that would provide the words of the anthem, got quite huffy about anyone daring to sing it in Spanish. Ironically, as few Americans realize, the music to the anthem came from an old English drinking song.
America is a big ship, and any big turns take a while to make. It is not only a big ship, but one whose controls are difficult to operate. It tends to do only ‘full steam ahead.”
America also has had a good streak of arrogance and self-importance since its heydays of the 1950s when it literally was king of the planet. Its assumption of what President Putin rightly calls “exceptionalism” does fit nicely with attitudes around extreme patriotism and xenophobia.
I think the conflict between Americans with fascist tones in their speech and others is not only just one more division in a country which has always been divided, in one way or another from its very beginning, but it reflects difference in ancestry of the population, as Northern Europeans versus Southern Europeans or Latins.
There can be no question that Trump represents those people. They make up a large part of his political base because he feeds them what they want to hear, often barely disguised hatreds and contempt for foreigners and for Americans who look different. Migrants of all kinds. Muslims. Hispanics. “Shithole countries” (his exact words) in general.
As far as talk of globalism goes, it is a very confused subject, the word almost taking on different meanings with different speakers.
Here are some fundamental realities that will determine the future of “globalism.”
The growth of international trade has been an immense benefit for many decades. The United States’ golden days of the postwar period were the result of it being a great supplier of goods to all corners of the earth. It was the only undamaged major nation, and it had invested hugely for war production.
As other nations recovered and changed and made brand new investments, the United States just naturally lost its special place. It also was encumbered by its own myths about itself. When its uniquely blessed period of opportunity in the world began to fade, those myths only dragged on its ability to adjust and re-invest and compete in a changing world. Americans at all levels of society really did believe they were the best at what they did.
I think Japan’s re-emergence was the first great shock to the American ego, but there have been others since, and the overwhelmingly big one has been the miraculous rise of China, something in fact, given China’s remarkable history, which should have been predictable. But you just don’t think clearly when you believe yourself indispensable to the world.
So, today, America is reduced to dishonest and dangerous tactics of every description to “re-claim” what it foolishly believes is its and its alone, the right to be number one in almost everything. Clearly, only a kind of religious or mystical belief could engender such an expectation. Never mind about getting down to hard work and investing to be more competitive, investing in everything from better schools to national infrastructure. And better government, too. No, we’re Americans, we’re entitled.
Large trading blocs, like the EU and others, are powerful mechanisms for increased prosperity. They may have their temporary ups and downs, but they are not going away simply because the basic economic principles underlying them are real and powerful.
Advances in technology will only continue to make international trade easier and less costly, and they will do so at an increasing rate of change.
With growing international trade, there is a growing need for international organizations to support, protect, and govern with agreed rules. That, too, is not going away, despite the bellowing of people like Trump. Such organizations are suffering right now, but they will return with strength simply because they are genuinely needed.
Every bit of trade destroyed, as with Trump’s illegal sanctions and arbitrary tariffs and threats, makes the world a poorer place than it need be. That’s basic economic science. Those who argue with scientific principles are only howling and spitting against the wind. They will not be able to sustain their destructive effort for too long, and for that we should all be glad.
As far as population and migration go, every advanced country has arrived at a point where births minus deaths cannot sustain population. This is a naturally occurring phenomenon called demographic transition. From that point, only in-migration can sustain or increase population. With absolutely no in-migration, such a nation would actually see its population shrinking, and with no end to it.
The average number of live births a woman is expected to have over her reproductive life in any given society is called the fertility rate.
Advanced countries today have fertility rates on the order of 1.5 or so. Without in-migration, a fertility rate of 2.1 is required just to sustain a population, but you will not find that in any advanced nation. There are many reasons for that, including, importantly, young modern women pursuing rewarding careers.
So, in-migration must be a part of every healthy society in the future, and this necessarily means different kinds of people arriving on your shores.
That, too, is not something new. In the distant past, it took the form of mass migrations and conquests and was not driven by demographic change. In an old familiar society like Britain, one whose people have an image we all enjoy and assume to be enduring, we actually have a history of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Norman French, and others creating the hybrid people we know.
Today, further change is underway in Britain as many people from former parts of the British Empire have established themselves there. And more migrants still will be needed since Britain’s fertility rate is too low to replace its population.
There’s just no avoiding the fact that in all traditional established states the future is going to look and sound different than what we have been used to.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GUILLAUME DUROCHER IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“Towards Expat Nationalism
“Technological and Psychological Factors for the Rise and Decline of the Nation-State”
It is good to keep in mind that the nation-state as we know it has no long history.
It is largely a creation of the 19th century. Many of the most familiar nations in Europe, for example, were created in that period – as Germany or Italy.
For most of history, we have had empires and kingdoms, large entities incorporating many kinds of people, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire.
For a while, extreme nationalists demanded that a given nation-state was for people of a certain ethnic identity, speaking a certain language, maybe even having a certain look and religion. This perhaps reflected lingering attitudes and hostilities from having rebelled against an old declining multi-national imperial group.
That notion, taken to its extreme, assisted ultimately in the birth of monstrosities such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
For the most part, the advanced world has moved well beyond that narrow and dangerous concept.
Israel, of course, is one of the last in the advanced world we hear still talking that way, which is a source of concern for all liberal-minded people.
The United States right now is something of an exception. There are unquestionably fascist tones in America’s contemporary political rhetoric. It is really odd when you think about it, the country being based on immigration and having been a “melting pot.”
But it has long been an undercurrent in America. The Nazi Bund was a pretty large movement in America, for example. The great journalist and writer, William L. Shirer, said once that he thought America might be the first country to go fascist voluntarily. Of course, organizations like the Klu Klux Klan and various extreme militia groups have long histories. As do fraternal organizations whose membership requires being a descendant from some early group.
Just not that many years ago, a Spanish-speaking person did a translation of America’s national anthem, and a recording of it became popular. Instead of being proud about it, certain groups of Americans became furious. There were ugly words hurled around. Even a descendent of Francis Scott Key, the man who wrote the “poem” in 1814 that would provide the words of the anthem, got quite huffy about anyone daring to sing it in Spanish. Ironically, as few Americans realize, the music to the anthem came from an old English drinking song.
America is a big ship, and any big turns take a while to make. It is not only a big ship, but one whose controls are difficult to operate. It tends to do only ‘full steam ahead.”
America also has had a good streak of arrogance and self-importance since its heydays of the 1950s when it literally was king of the planet. Its assumption of what President Putin rightly calls “exceptionalism” does fit nicely with attitudes around extreme patriotism and xenophobia.
I think the conflict between Americans with fascist tones in their speech and others is not only just one more division in a country which has always been divided, in one way or another from its very beginning, but it reflects difference in ancestry of the population, as Northern Europeans versus Southern Europeans or Latins.
There can be no question that Trump represents those people. They make up a large part of his political base because he feeds them what they want to hear, often barely disguised hatreds and contempt for foreigners and for Americans who look different. Migrants of all kinds. Muslims. Hispanics. “Shithole countries” (his exact words) in general.
As far as talk of globalism goes, it is a very confused subject, the word almost taking on different meanings with different speakers.
Here are some fundamental realities that will determine the future of “globalism.”
The growth of international trade has been an immense benefit for many decades. The United States’ golden days of the postwar period were the result of it being a great supplier of goods to all corners of the earth. It was the only undamaged major nation, and it had invested hugely for war production.
As other nations recovered and changed and made brand new investments, the United States just naturally lost its special place. It also was encumbered by its own myths about itself. When its uniquely blessed period of opportunity in the world began to fade, those myths only dragged on its ability to adjust and re-invest and compete in a changing world. Americans at all levels of society really did believe they were the best at what they did.
I think Japan’s re-emergence was the first great shock to the American ego, but there have been others since, and the overwhelmingly big one has been the miraculous rise of China, something in fact, given China’s remarkable history, which should have been predictable. But you just don’t think clearly when you believe yourself indispensable to the world.
So, today, America is reduced to dishonest and dangerous tactics of every description to “re-claim” what it foolishly believes is its and its alone, the right to be number one in almost everything. Clearly, only a kind of religious or mystical belief could engender such an expectation. Never mind about getting down to hard work and investing to be more competitive, investing in everything from better schools to national infrastructure. And better government, too. No, we’re Americans, we’re entitled.
Large trading blocs, like the EU and others, are powerful mechanisms for increased prosperity. They may have their temporary ups and downs, but they are not going away simply because the basic economic principles underlying them are real and powerful.
Advances in technology will only continue to make international trade easier and less costly, and they will do so at an increasing rate of change.
With growing international trade, there is a growing need for international organizations to support, protect, and govern with agreed rules. That, too, is not going away, despite the bellowing of people like Trump. Such organizations are suffering right now, but they will return with strength simply because they are genuinely needed.
Every bit of trade destroyed, as with Trump’s illegal sanctions and arbitrary tariffs and threats, makes the world a poorer place than it need be. That’s basic economic science. Those who argue with scientific principles are only howling and spitting against the wind. They will not be able to sustain their destructive effort for too long, and for that we should all be glad.
As far as population and migration go, every advanced country has arrived at a point where births minus deaths cannot sustain population. This is a naturally occurring phenomenon called demographic transition. From that point, only in-migration can sustain or increase population. With absolutely no in-migration, such a nation would actually see its population shrinking, and with no end to it.
The average number of live births a woman is expected to have over her reproductive life in any given society is called the fertility rate.
Advanced countries today have fertility rates on the order of 1.5 or so. Without in-migration, a fertility rate of 2.1 is required just to sustain a population, but you will not find that in any advanced nation. There are many reasons for that, including, importantly, young modern women pursuing rewarding careers.
So, in-migration must be a part of every healthy society in the future, and this necessarily means different kinds of people arriving on your shores.
That, too, is not something new. In the distant past, it took the form of mass migrations and conquests and was not driven by demographic change. In an old familiar society like Britain, one whose people have an image we all enjoy and assume to be enduring, we actually have a history of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Norman French, and others creating the hybrid people we know.
Today, further change is underway in Britain as many people from former parts of the British Empire have established themselves there. And more migrants still will be needed since Britain’s fertility rate is too low to replace its population.
There’s just no avoiding the fact that in all traditional established states the future is going to look and sound different than what we have been used to.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WE ARE DOMINATED BY THE CONCERNS OF THOSE ENJOYING NEARLY ABSOLUTE POWER AND POSSESSING VIRTUALLY NO VALUES - A BRITISH WRITER OFFERS A DEFINITIVE ACCOUNT OF THE LIES CONTAINED IN THE SKRIPAL AFFAIR - AND AN ELOQUENT STATEMENT OF CONCERN FOR WHAT IT REPRESENTS IN OUR SOCIETY
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ROB SLANE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA (aka ANTI-EMPIRE)
“Buying the Official Skripal Poisoning Story Requires Believing 40 Absurd or Implausible Claims…At the Same Time
“A riddle, wrapped in a cover up, inside a hoax”
https://www.anti-empire.com/buying-the-official-skripal-poisoning-story-requires-believing-40-absurd-or-implausible-claims-at-the-same-time/
Wow! This is a powerful statement of the case, and with great details.
I've done my own accounting before of absurdities in the Skripal case, but this article is nearly definitive.
I very much like Rob Slane’s closing sentiment: "It’s not the kind of society I hoped to see when I was growing up. It’s not the kind of society I hoped my children would grow up in".
Exactly the same, sadly, is true of America. Indeed, the Skripal case is only a British echo about American imperial matters, the effort of Theresa May’s government to support American concerns about Russia at the time.
Our world is heavily overshadowed by the concerns and values of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which is to say, the concerns of those enjoying close to absolute power and possessing virtually no values.
And while we laugh here and there at some of the excesses – as a moronic President telling us how he likes to steal oil - none of it is really funny.
Because it all reflects the rot and corruption of great power and close to total lack of accountability of government to the people in countries which insist on styling themselves as democratic.
It’s almost as though we are being pushed back in time to the era before the changes in human affairs brought with the Enlightenment and the French “Declaration of the Rights of Man.”
It is a dark world in which we live, and I fear it’s going to become still darker with America’s overpoweringly ugly new attitudes towards Russia and China and Iran. Americans should remember the famous quote from the political cartoon character, Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us”
Readers might enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/john-chuckman-comment-china-russia-and-the-united-states-in-the-21st-century-some-difficult-and-dangerous-times-ahead-as-the-world-now-rapidly-evolves-in-ways-america-rejects/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/john-chuckman-comment-the-role-of-lies-in-the-history-of-empire-and-abuse-essence-of-americas-lies-about-russia-russia-gate-mike-pompeo-as-an-example-to-us-all-of-bizarre-contradictions-not/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/john-chuckman-comment-tiresome-anti-putin-propaganda-just-never-stops-editors-assume-readers-are-ignorant-in-some-ways-russia-does-compare-favorably-to-america-or-israel-jails-and-state-violenc/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2020/01/20/john-chuckman-comment-boris-johnson-throws-away-a-chance-to-improve-relations-with-russia-bringing-back-theresa-mays-fetidly-imagined-salisbury-attack-or-skripal-affair-and-demonstrating/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-interesting-new-fact-on-salisbury-englands-skripal-affair-why-the-official-british-version-is-false-it-has-has-never-met-the-test-of-reason/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ROB SLANE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA (aka ANTI-EMPIRE)
“Buying the Official Skripal Poisoning Story Requires Believing 40 Absurd or Implausible Claims…At the Same Time
“A riddle, wrapped in a cover up, inside a hoax”
https://www.anti-empire.com/buying-the-official-skripal-poisoning-story-requires-believing-40-absurd-or-implausible-claims-at-the-same-time/
Wow! This is a powerful statement of the case, and with great details.
I've done my own accounting before of absurdities in the Skripal case, but this article is nearly definitive.
I very much like Rob Slane’s closing sentiment: "It’s not the kind of society I hoped to see when I was growing up. It’s not the kind of society I hoped my children would grow up in".
Exactly the same, sadly, is true of America. Indeed, the Skripal case is only a British echo about American imperial matters, the effort of Theresa May’s government to support American concerns about Russia at the time.
Our world is heavily overshadowed by the concerns and values of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which is to say, the concerns of those enjoying close to absolute power and possessing virtually no values.
And while we laugh here and there at some of the excesses – as a moronic President telling us how he likes to steal oil - none of it is really funny.
Because it all reflects the rot and corruption of great power and close to total lack of accountability of government to the people in countries which insist on styling themselves as democratic.
It’s almost as though we are being pushed back in time to the era before the changes in human affairs brought with the Enlightenment and the French “Declaration of the Rights of Man.”
It is a dark world in which we live, and I fear it’s going to become still darker with America’s overpoweringly ugly new attitudes towards Russia and China and Iran. Americans should remember the famous quote from the political cartoon character, Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us”
Readers might enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/john-chuckman-comment-china-russia-and-the-united-states-in-the-21st-century-some-difficult-and-dangerous-times-ahead-as-the-world-now-rapidly-evolves-in-ways-america-rejects/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/john-chuckman-comment-the-role-of-lies-in-the-history-of-empire-and-abuse-essence-of-americas-lies-about-russia-russia-gate-mike-pompeo-as-an-example-to-us-all-of-bizarre-contradictions-not/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/john-chuckman-comment-tiresome-anti-putin-propaganda-just-never-stops-editors-assume-readers-are-ignorant-in-some-ways-russia-does-compare-favorably-to-america-or-israel-jails-and-state-violenc/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2020/01/20/john-chuckman-comment-boris-johnson-throws-away-a-chance-to-improve-relations-with-russia-bringing-back-theresa-mays-fetidly-imagined-salisbury-attack-or-skripal-affair-and-demonstrating/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-interesting-new-fact-on-salisbury-englands-skripal-affair-why-the-official-british-version-is-false-it-has-has-never-met-the-test-of-reason/
Tuesday, March 03, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA'S FEAR OF DEMOCRACY WAS BUILT RIGHT INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION - AND WHILE MANY DETAILS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THE COUNTRY THAT FEAR REMAINS EMBEDDED IN ITS POLITICS - AS WE CAN SEE IN THE CASE OF THE DEMOCRATS AND BERNIE SANDERS
John Chuckman
FEAR OF DEMOCRACY IS BUILT RIGHT INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION
Words are misused in America a great deal in our day. That has some relationship with the establishment’s ongoing efforts to hide and lie about what it is actually doing, especially abroad in matters of the empire.
And I‘m pretty sure the overwhelming dominance of advertising and marketing for so many products, from cigarettes to political parties, plays a big role too. Advertising is, by definition, partial truth, intended to influence but not really to inform, just like its sister, propaganda.
And there is the added factor of a popular culture which has grown up with little respect for careful language and even the very meaning of words.
You can’t, as a society, be immersed in certain customs and practices without their eventually influencing everything.
So it is with America’s ceaseless battles around the idea of democracy. America is not, and never has been, a democracy.
Many of its Founders - great land owners and lawyers and successful smugglers - were horrified at the very idea of democracy. They viewed the idea much as J Edgar Hoover viewed the word ”communism” a century and a half later.
They created a Constitution with many protections for privileges and property, including even for slavery.
Over time, many of these protections were changed, but largely because they were no longer needed. Economies keep changing as technology changes, and with that change comes changes in social and political practices and institutions. By superficial appearance, America became more of a democracy with the gradual extension of the right to vote to most people and the end of practices like appointing the Senate.
However, even America’s basic structure of divided government with its checks and balances, still with us and often praised, was in fact the result of fears over creeping democracy. James Madison, one of the truly important Founders, said as much. The divisions and checks were intended as a “divide and conquer” strategy against the emergence of democracy.
And they have worked. The great establishment concerns over the possible candidacy of Bernie Sanders attests to that. Many different elements of the establishment have come together to try denying him the Democrats’ nomination – Clinton, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Warren, and others.
The irony is, there is little of which to be fearful. Bernie is an old-fashion FDR progressive, not a socialist in any real sense of the word. The further reality is that there is little in his program that stands any chance of being enacted even were he elected. By the finest Congress money can buy? Inconceivable. And the last time I checked the American Constitution, it required both House and Senate approval of any legislation.
But the elaborate efforts to derail Bernie Sanders tell us a great deal about the aversion to the slightest risk of the people who actually direct and control America.
Even though he could change almost nothing, it would be a refreshing change to see Trump and his ugly values defeated, and it would be nice to hear a voice of reason and decency speaking for the county for a change.
FEAR OF DEMOCRACY IS BUILT RIGHT INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION
Words are misused in America a great deal in our day. That has some relationship with the establishment’s ongoing efforts to hide and lie about what it is actually doing, especially abroad in matters of the empire.
And I‘m pretty sure the overwhelming dominance of advertising and marketing for so many products, from cigarettes to political parties, plays a big role too. Advertising is, by definition, partial truth, intended to influence but not really to inform, just like its sister, propaganda.
And there is the added factor of a popular culture which has grown up with little respect for careful language and even the very meaning of words.
You can’t, as a society, be immersed in certain customs and practices without their eventually influencing everything.
So it is with America’s ceaseless battles around the idea of democracy. America is not, and never has been, a democracy.
Many of its Founders - great land owners and lawyers and successful smugglers - were horrified at the very idea of democracy. They viewed the idea much as J Edgar Hoover viewed the word ”communism” a century and a half later.
They created a Constitution with many protections for privileges and property, including even for slavery.
Over time, many of these protections were changed, but largely because they were no longer needed. Economies keep changing as technology changes, and with that change comes changes in social and political practices and institutions. By superficial appearance, America became more of a democracy with the gradual extension of the right to vote to most people and the end of practices like appointing the Senate.
However, even America’s basic structure of divided government with its checks and balances, still with us and often praised, was in fact the result of fears over creeping democracy. James Madison, one of the truly important Founders, said as much. The divisions and checks were intended as a “divide and conquer” strategy against the emergence of democracy.
And they have worked. The great establishment concerns over the possible candidacy of Bernie Sanders attests to that. Many different elements of the establishment have come together to try denying him the Democrats’ nomination – Clinton, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Warren, and others.
The irony is, there is little of which to be fearful. Bernie is an old-fashion FDR progressive, not a socialist in any real sense of the word. The further reality is that there is little in his program that stands any chance of being enacted even were he elected. By the finest Congress money can buy? Inconceivable. And the last time I checked the American Constitution, it required both House and Senate approval of any legislation.
But the elaborate efforts to derail Bernie Sanders tell us a great deal about the aversion to the slightest risk of the people who actually direct and control America.
Even though he could change almost nothing, it would be a refreshing change to see Trump and his ugly values defeated, and it would be nice to hear a voice of reason and decency speaking for the county for a change.
Sunday, March 01, 2020
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT - BOTH OLD AND NEW - I REMIND SOME AMERICAN COMMENTERS, ARROGANT ABOUT WHAT THEY REGARD AS CHINA'S BAD BEHAVIOR, A BIT ABOUT AMERICA'S OWN HISTORY AND ITS CURRENT BEHAVIOR IN THE SAME MATTER
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GODFREE ROBERTS IN UNZ REVIEW
Does China Outspend US on Defense?
Can We Afford an Arms Race with the World’s Biggest Economy?
_________________________
Response to a comment about the way China steals America’s intellectual property (and there were a number of such comments):
Do you have any idea of America's own historical record?
In the late 18th and through the 19th century, Americans travelled to Europe - especially to Britain and France - and bought copies of anything new they could lay their hands on - farm machinery and implements, window sashes, new gadgets of every description, fashions, textiles, and newly published books and music.
They brought the items home to be studied and copied, if at all possible, given America's generally lower level of technology. The theft was on a massive scale.
Dickens, on his visit to the US, was furious to see his latest novel from his British publisher re-published in Boston in an edition for which he would receive not a cent of royalties.
Theft of intellectual property was one of the major avenues for America’s advance for more than a century.
So, it's really a little odd to hear or read all the American self-righteous claims today over China.
As though America always played fair.
America has never played fair, at anything, so long as it could get away with it.
But that's good old America for you - breaking the rules and being self-righteous while doing it.
Big Fat Mike Pompeo in a recent talk at Texas A &M University was chuckling and laughing about how in his days at CIA, they “lied, cheated, and stole."
That's Big Fat Mike Pompeo of "the Bible is always open on my desk."
And what do you think the NSA is doing to all of America's allies, not just its adversaries? It's stealing from them and their companies, big time.
America has simply become ridiculous.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY GODFREE ROBERTS IN UNZ REVIEW
Does China Outspend US on Defense?
Can We Afford an Arms Race with the World’s Biggest Economy?
_________________________
Response to a comment about the way China steals America’s intellectual property (and there were a number of such comments):
Do you have any idea of America's own historical record?
In the late 18th and through the 19th century, Americans travelled to Europe - especially to Britain and France - and bought copies of anything new they could lay their hands on - farm machinery and implements, window sashes, new gadgets of every description, fashions, textiles, and newly published books and music.
They brought the items home to be studied and copied, if at all possible, given America's generally lower level of technology. The theft was on a massive scale.
Dickens, on his visit to the US, was furious to see his latest novel from his British publisher re-published in Boston in an edition for which he would receive not a cent of royalties.
Theft of intellectual property was one of the major avenues for America’s advance for more than a century.
So, it's really a little odd to hear or read all the American self-righteous claims today over China.
As though America always played fair.
America has never played fair, at anything, so long as it could get away with it.
But that's good old America for you - breaking the rules and being self-righteous while doing it.
Big Fat Mike Pompeo in a recent talk at Texas A &M University was chuckling and laughing about how in his days at CIA, they “lied, cheated, and stole."
That's Big Fat Mike Pompeo of "the Bible is always open on my desk."
And what do you think the NSA is doing to all of America's allies, not just its adversaries? It's stealing from them and their companies, big time.
America has simply become ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)