Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present,
courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.
True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to
have given her permission for the reposting.
Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic
and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics
taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?
Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.
Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he
seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.
I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I
have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all
people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense
of betrayal.
So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the
remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as
we now know, included Peter Strzok)
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Luke Harding's new book, Collusion:
Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win , doesn't claim
to have definitive proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to win the election.
Still, Harding, who served as The Guardian 's Moscow bureau chief for four years
before being thrown out of the country for his critical reporting on Vladimir Putin's
government, presents a powerful case for Russian interference, and Trump campaign collusion, by
collecting years of reporting on Trump's connections to Russia and putting it all together in a
coherent narrative.
It's the sheer breadth of connections, many of them dating back 20 years or
more, between Trump and his associates and Russians with close ties to the Kremlin that put the
lie to Trump's repeated claims that he has no ties to Russia.
If all of these dealings were on
the up-and-up, Trump and his crew wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to obscure them. Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures
campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently
staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far
from a partisan "witch hunt."
In an interview with The Nation , Harding was quick to acknowledge that there's a
lot that we don't know. "I think when it comes to following the money, we only have maybe 10 or
15 percent of the story," he said. "I think 85 percent of that story is still submerged."
Nonetheless, he says that what we do know so far is significant.
I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's
bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another
set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically
contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The stakes are much larger.
I think [Vladimir] Putin has kind of done this quite cleverly. He's not some kind of evil
villain in a cave flipping red switches. He's essentially an opportunist who has very
adroitly taken advantage of problems in the West, and divisions in American society --
whether they're cultural or racial or political -- and he's sought to exploit and
instrumentalize them for his own purposes.
There are also really interesting questions about how far back Russia's relationship with
Donald Trump goes. One thing my book makes clear, or seeks to make clear, is that the
Russians play a very long game. They've been interested in Donald Trump for a very long
time.
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Luke Daniel Harding
(born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student
newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening
Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in
1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.
Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine of the eXile for publishing an
article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The
Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.
According to his own testimony , Luke
Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his
stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom
windows open.
A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his
kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord
had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in
Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it
had to have been the FSB.
You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why
it had been so clear to him, even
without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one
look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get
him .
The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts.
And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in
his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew
he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement
and a kind of cold rational rage."
Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take
care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account.
Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the
word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his
mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would
need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.
That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had
begun.
A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he
opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At
the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on
the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a
leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and
took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't
find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.
When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from
the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd
conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which
seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite
thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had
been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided
this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an
interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for
like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his
phone.
After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there
was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not
leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the
dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly
open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen
in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen
saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.
All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end,
they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well,
they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he
didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his
kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because
Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.
He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke
was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at
him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible
experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage
problems were over, they started
up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.
This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB
obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national
security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing
it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used
spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing
them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't
mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised
they'd met their match and stopped.
He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it
definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.
I mean that would just be stupid.
NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be
making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here
in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.
Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does
think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all
his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.
We also recommend you take in this opinion
piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat
in Moscow.
After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:
Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic
paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an
intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser
Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the
Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news.
Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA
stooge.
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him
scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's
latest fictional release titled "Collusion".
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity –
totally unsupportable.
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like
this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.
In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god
send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB
(they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though
the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take
me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra
No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I,
a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside
table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I
bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to
outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest
possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your
bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and
turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be
upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the
headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from
view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe
me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never
realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!
Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it
for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god!
Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop
this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must
remove my head from my .
(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place
Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and
The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another
guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics
course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other
work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?
Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York
Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't
spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks
quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?
I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any
secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we
go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new
trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time
in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.
I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours
visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go
for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to
check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column
in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that
I am probably a member of the FSB.
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine
called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the
mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does
not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so
with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the
worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read.
When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were
insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside
opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.
It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and
smears in Mr Harding's articles.
How did he/they respond ?
Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers
banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.
It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story
maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on
Russia haha.
It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in
Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts."
That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it
would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally
funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man
sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole
purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an
open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch,
someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has
nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or
delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time
"The dark symbolism of the open window .."
There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses
clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of
nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense
layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have
an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet,
it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's
even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."
I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border
crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he
actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border
crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his
Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks
at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were
purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if
nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks
because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative
against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen
appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible
invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a
Russian tank.
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from
Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other
such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia
vehicles in Chechnya.
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the
tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going
in the other direction.
BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in
Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and
open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated
Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was
interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think
Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an
irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's
version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily
Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of
substantive difference between these two organs of State.
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in
the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless
journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave
a sex manual by his bed.
Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have
aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded
in the manual?
If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about
it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here.
That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be
provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on"
types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged
scandal.
Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that
Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a
liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.
Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about
Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and
others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate)
has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even
the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a
mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political
slant.
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!
I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with
nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with
VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight
to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above
mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819
It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill,
noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real
News.
The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a
state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear
proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job
Aaron!
Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has
shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing
in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the
Democratic party insiders.
Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That
is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt
on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault
of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a
book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar
situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is
irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it
the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this
writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you.
Peace.
Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly
unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he
couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to
directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be
factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and
unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always
appreciated by your loyal viewers.
I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this
ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making
him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the
Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want
from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting
as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties
for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing
this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing
anything new or any actual proof.
Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four
years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to
other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think
Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"
I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to
direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical
producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how
awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that
he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision.
Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in,
little more. Good job, Aaron.
Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3]
is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security
Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30
years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George
W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the
Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment
that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ
Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to
be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con
journalists.
So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in
espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you
to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30"I'm a story
teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.
Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this
is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)
Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist"
challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the
prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world
would be in a lot better shape.
Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective
questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased
journalism seems very rare these days
Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to
throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his
connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated,
Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.
And I wouldn't be
surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you
never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while
understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he
presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue
(like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable
ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow
'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random,
laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT,
Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.
And there is NO REAL
EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand
selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in
Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time
reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling
self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of
their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing
of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy!
mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always
evil Reds... errr, Russians.
Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their
two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror,
especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford
background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench
frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK
YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)
this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better
- Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to
Journo school .
What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how
deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so
condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.
I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some
of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to
place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might
have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want
to get into Russia and start doing deals.
They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush
Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.
I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for
it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so
now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while
minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a
containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying
attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty
propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with
past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in
this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.
A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on
abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real
investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview
about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.
Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by
the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental
arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore
were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence
perfectly.
Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is
that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US
election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between
Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking
secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and
occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by
every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all
three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives
us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning
every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald
Trump.
I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with
insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's
first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent
the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a
bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece
of work I have rarely seen.
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING
with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The
knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to
secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.
This seems like yet another attempt to
divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have
some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is
laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been
disproven.
I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath
court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against
Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a
disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the
facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your
impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that
they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the
same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or
powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game
you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's
what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In
this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is
getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.
Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the
middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and
call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!
Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke
where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's
credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or
Hedges.
He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe
somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of
Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from
reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's
complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves
the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see
the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and
facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in
this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)
The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump
enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the
Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the
state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.
I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a
bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the
Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage
This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary
ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a
fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations.
I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a
massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological
operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep
State.
I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will
only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly
you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of
journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the
integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that
Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says,
08:25 "I
think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only
what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population
are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the
British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This
deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it
has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose
motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed
population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this
sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS
this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or
"Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's
Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the
whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist
system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be
some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New
York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs'
real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7
countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was
offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian
employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some
good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the
stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception
and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it
frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up.
You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté
did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay
at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be
a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be
incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are
the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial
aggression since the beginning of time.
Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to
confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned
the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality,
Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why
Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are
connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via
Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United
States.
This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and
integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer
get?!
I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book.
This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they
are from that.
Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of
collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to
see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context."
Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because
I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask
Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't
listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own
book...
That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've
seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm
surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a
Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year
that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.
This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and
ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!
Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably
not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the
Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian.
Thanks again Aaron.
This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a
great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy
pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.
What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled
off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral
process, one is just a lot easier.
ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The
perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because
spoiler, you didn't commit it.
Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every
body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The
Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very
little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!
This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti.
And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent
job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People
creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just
held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and
confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin
is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and
profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!
This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the
interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden
outburst one of these interviews
Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst
Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.
I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and
his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office.
Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama
refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he
is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.
It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't
even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years
later... Idiot....
Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we
just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of
something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in
the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating,
BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is
nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like
they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim
it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not
reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?
Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever
eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked
for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's
ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.
Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says
nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is
obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.
This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the
questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or
any other gutter press
I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his
book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the
least.
this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich
boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence.
That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!
Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation,
speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.
The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any
country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say
about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh
I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this
same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad
generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent
interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a
fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this
fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making
a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted
propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for
not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of
those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose
style is less overly vulgar and divisive.
At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in
a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.
Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your
bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero
intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe
you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a
deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's
gruesome murder?
Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest
between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and
not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much
respect to RT.
Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching
this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's
corruption.
"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or
hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled
Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken
apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there
is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his
assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its
fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian
Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as
plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct
Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html
Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and
committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of
demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the
Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to
true journalism.
This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish
people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you
hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.
That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from
buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed
agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media
here is "London thinks this, so you should too"
Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your
interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I
think he was well grilled by the time he left.
It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute
disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia
during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet
this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists
realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political
wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt
to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30
years...
Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with
false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy
on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.
When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the
intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria
once again.
Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too
bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its
really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed
about..."
Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as
the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.
Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and
finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points
this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the
russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' -
it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The
idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian
Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one,
however.
Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book
just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his
cunningness.
Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the
fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it
belongs.
He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe
they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the
allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.
Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived
notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.
He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are
talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This
is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .
This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate
propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol
This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting
such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively
simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is
at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before
cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing
Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some
history.
In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal
Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to
the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!
The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I
believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen
for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The
Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.
Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got.
That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup
to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke
Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's
an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!
Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails,
which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely
did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by
anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw
aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once
more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the
media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.
Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion?
IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with
the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay
back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and
maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq
and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an
investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia
narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything
about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can
use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political
theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.
How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat
earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally
forgot
Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and
he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to
assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the
1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have
interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There
are real problems to deal with.
LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this
crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have
one on.
Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes
to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that
in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't
accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his
personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).
So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage.
(edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public
"hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand.
That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via
those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out ..
your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from
the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by
Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual
pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not
a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add
that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The
thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B
are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the
compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy
humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is
composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders -
so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders.
Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist.
And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we
can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At
least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the
commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating,
drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And
none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole
thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking
around for.)
PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children
for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on
the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which
gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy,
organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated
Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how
much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their
forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic
Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another
journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney
has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great
work...I bow to you.
I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the
author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its
contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to
watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!
Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!).
Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't
seem to defend his position.
The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that
journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real
grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and
Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.
Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it
anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.
Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that
Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss
Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!
Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures
that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists
like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that
enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World
War 3 in 2018?
the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox
msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people
''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was
Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly
is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who
is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?
This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal
publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering
ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight
against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.
No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way
Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by
Podesta back in 2015. Peace
"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a
storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.
That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases
proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a
well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy
World" would have been a better title for his book.
Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by
association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute
*evidence*.
It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional
of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the
interests of their masters
The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to
Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are
based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding
has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a
prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence
of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required
to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on
inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything
to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump
victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or
opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of
shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to
know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This
epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a
thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we
were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time:
the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield." George Orwell
This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a
pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of
collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends
died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.
It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real
News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a
pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving
himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of
view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same
games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's
hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's
premise.
I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the
guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble.
The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like
a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.
No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader
hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate
narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign
elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA,
showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied
by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing
something?
It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our
democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced
by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron,
go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you
interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate
Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl
are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and
opportunism
Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into
the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe
the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global
domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit
demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing
against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical
relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may
well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still
doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about
global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent
for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.
Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book
on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a
guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?
Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record
helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to
vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to
hear.
great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great
job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or
his hypothesis,
Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had
companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and
an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.
Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is
cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his
questioning
Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four
year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to
recover.
That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new
out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost
Clinton the election
The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at
every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of
unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to
accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a
better term...
this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning
interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as
theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that
could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have
been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one
would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book
are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.
Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter
how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone
knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response
is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots
to see.
On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it
was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it
was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.
The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge
nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be
cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is
well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a
repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.
Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one
salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying!
:) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies!
Drats!
Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10
minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we
know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency
of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what
are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no
such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical
thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you
will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite
THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)
Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does
Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just
take his and his "sources'" word for it?
Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous
attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries
to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of
Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'
Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who
supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me
that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach,
who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as
potential double voters."
http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind
of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the
Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate
groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers
probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money
and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of
improvisational 05:00 the most important thing
is that you you 05:02 have people with access
which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?
Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence
of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote
for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the
surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing
millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans
& Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do
the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the
fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance.
Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of
all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations
to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders
picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth.
Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats.
Oregon Green Energy
Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want
to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than
circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has
ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the
argument.
Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money
for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion
with North Korea and Iran.
Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the
election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all
mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population
doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up
to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life
Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the
top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST
COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....
This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing
this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't
follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.
The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully
distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the
conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many
complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans
are awake to the scheme.
In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able
to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing
though.
If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious.
Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as
if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli
Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a
history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from,
shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition
and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility.
He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews.
Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in
other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they
finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?
For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had
Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews
Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty
soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion
deniers".
Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an
opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite
the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of
his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show
(tee hee), Huff Po etc etc
*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away.
Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should
still marry me though.
Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British
accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of
all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in
bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my
chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda
surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition!
I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is
Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because
he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!
Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake
narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.
Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of
Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but
this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for
this nonsense.
The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to
support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that
the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions
is utterly ridiculous.
This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump
campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this
young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I
have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate
lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.
I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read
the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read
the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data
and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that
goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but
he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either
. If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it,
as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as
it's not a genuine debate .
Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof.
Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail
for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.
Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The
man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.
His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of
accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire,
they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.
It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what
they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question .
This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how
dare you not believe me .
Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely
exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on
truckin'...
Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something
transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are
being led to believe.
His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to
go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA)
if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during
the campaign.
What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just
a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom
feeders.
Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and
background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This
book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single
documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction.
The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can
bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to
under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist.
The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all
over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of
their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.
Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally
explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it
without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has
fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That
is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media
softball.
It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016
election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They
often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do
know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for
decades.
Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that?
Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the
only thing that matters.
really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when
not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.
Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He
just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him
whatsover!
HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without
laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves
to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO
EVIDENCE!
**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter"
(used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect
or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored
according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would
have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no
evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the
Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this
idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the
Russian Lawyer into the country.
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet
era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful
tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing.
After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the
moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to
which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past
Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron,
except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer
had patience.
Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a
non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like,
but you did it politely.
Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a
great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people
with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.
Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every
Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and
''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!
Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North
America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so
diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and
speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for
being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a
photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape
and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as
there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction
author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click
disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview.
Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!
Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie
during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary
secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary
and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite
honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom
support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic
Party!
This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the
worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of
tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could
convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he
has.
This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this
storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in
the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews
LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling
and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and
billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings.
So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.
Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good
speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is
flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with
this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate
One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did
they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do
this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may
be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't
happen to be much of a threat externally
Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of
warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as
President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before
Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.
But Clinton is a front for the neocon
wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that
it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The
war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII
is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down
and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get
their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face,
would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs
even more.
Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the
Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw
power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon"
hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have
no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and
knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its
planes.
And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from
interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been
faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a
damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at
least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into
power.
Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch
of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a
lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?
How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent
opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any
attention??
Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding
has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.
the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very
satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.
Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the
question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then
looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish
watching this. Good job Aaron.
Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a
shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It
was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author
felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards
Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the
position.
This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL
scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this
issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding
elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about
how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.
The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be
brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own
part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding
people accountable.
smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going
to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.
This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most
Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections
have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot
of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY
elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?
I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up.
It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has
completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the
last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed
cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories.
There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are
part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to
prison finally.
Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling
cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this
"storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with
stories like his.
Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning
him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ,
State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want
to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates
all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With
regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly
who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not
come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given
Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he
showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet.
Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much
shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money
from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat
to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack
of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.
That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially
in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point
to any evidence."
1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am
an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2
parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for
the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of
unemployeed young draftees.
Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?
While Israel is a US ally, violating UN resolutions by Trump is a dangerous and reckless game. Trump as geopolitical cowboy. One
day the USA elite might regret their behaviour since 1991.
What is interesting is that the USA foreign policy is practically independent of who is elected as a Present. It has its own independence
dynamics and string continuity. In a sense the President is just a figurehead. That said "Kushner is totally out of his depth
and playing with fire. The damage done by the shambolic Trump maladministration will take years, if not decades, to repair. "
Notable quotes:
"... The 36-year-old is a Harvard graduate who seems to have a hard time filling in forms correctly . ..."
"... He is also said to have told Michael Flynn last December to call UN security council members to get a resolution condemning Israeli settlements quashed. Flynn called Russia. ..."
"... Days before bin Salman's unprecedented move, Kushner was with the crown prince in Riyadh on an unannounced trip. The men are reported to have stayed up late, planning strategy while swapping stories. We don't know what exactly the two were plotting, but Donald Trump later tweeted his "great confidence" in bin Salman. ..."
"... But the Kushner-bin Salman alliance moves far beyond Riyadh. The Saudis and Americans are now privately pushing a new "peace" deal to various Palestinian and Arab leaders that is more lop-sided toward Israel than ever before. ..."
"... Ahmad Tibi, a Palestinian parliamentarian in the Israeli Knesset, explained the basic contours of the deal to the New York Times: no full statehood for Palestinians, only "moral sovereignty." Control over disconnected segments of the occupied territories only. No capital in East Jerusalem. No right of return for Palestinian refugees. ..."
"... But it's not just Israel, either. Yemen is on the brink of a major humanitarian disaster largely because the country is being blockaded by Saudi Arabia. Trump finally spoke out against the Saudi measure this week, but both the state department and the Pentagon are said to have been privately urging Saudi Arabia and the UAE to ease their campaign against Yemen (and Lebanon and Qatar) for some time and to little impact. Why? Because Saudi and Emirati officials believe they "have tacit approval from the White House for their hardline actions, in particular from Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner," journalist Laura Rozen reported . ..."
"... The Kushner-bin Salman alliance has particularly irked secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Kushner reportedly leaves the state department completely out of his Middle Eastern plans. Of special concern to Tillerson, according to Bloomberg News , is Kushner's talks with bin Salman regarding military action by Saudi Arabia against Qatar. The state department is worried of all the unforeseen consequences such a radical course of action would bring, including heightened conflict with Turkey and Russia and perhaps even a military response from Iran or an attack on Israel by Hezbollah ..."
"... What about the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia? That seat's also vacant. And the US ambassador to Jordan, Morocco, Egypt? Vacant, vacant, and vacant. What about assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs, a chief strategic post to establish US policy in the region? No one's been nominated. Deputy assistant secretary for press and public diplomacy? Vacant ..."
"... It's partly this vacuum of leadership by Tillerson that has enabled Kushner to forge his powerful alliance with bin Salman, much to the detriment of the region. And in their zeal to isolate Iran, Kushner and bin Salman are leaving a wake of destruction around them. ..."
"... The war in Yemen is only intensifying. Qatar is closer to Iran than ever. A final status deal between Israel and the Palestinians seems all but impossible now. The Lebanese prime minister went back on his resignation. And the Saudi state must be paying the Ritz-Carlton a small fortune to jail key members of the ruling family over allegations of corruption. ..."
"... There's a long history of American politicians deciding they know what's best for the Middle East while buttressing their autocratic allies and at the expense of the region's ordinary people. ..."
"... The US has honestly broken many Palestinians into pieces. Where do you think all those fighter jets, tanks and gun boats come from ..."
"... In 1948 my father, who knew the Middle East well, said of the creation of Israel 'it will never work'. Of course, throwing thousands of people off their land is not the best way to create a peaceful country. And, while the Western guilt about the Holocaust furthered the creation of a homeland for the Jews, the plight of the Palestinians was completely neglected. ..."
"... The Trump administration has certainly increased tensions in the area...significantly. Much of this seems to have to do with challenging Iran's influence in the area. I suspect that is why Saudi Arabia and Trump are in cahoots. Saudi Arabia wants to be the new dominant country in the region and Iran is their main competitor. I expect a new war in the region against Qatar/Iran and Yemen. And we all know where Kushner will place his allegiance. ..."
"... The book Allies for Armageddon by Victoria Clark states that right-wing Israeli political groups exploit the Christian Fundamentalists in American into giving Israel their support and funding, as the latter believe Israel's full control of Jerusalem etc will bring forth the rapture. ..."
"... Good questions. Trump has declared that the department should be reduced significantly. The vacant posts are partly due to that and partly due to the fact that Tillerson has rejected most of the administration's recommendations because of their being political picks. ..."
"... Tillerson in the mean time seems to have barricaded himself behind a very few loyal lieutenants. He has not been able or interested in enabling or supporting the rest of the department ..."
"... Trump constantly ridicules Tillerson, privately and publicly and Tillerson called Trump a moron after a meeting in which Trump expressed his desire to increase our nuclear arsenal 10 times. ..."
"... Until the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital the US could at least pretend to be an honest peace broker in the ME/Palestine issue - they have now dropped even this. The Palestinians have always considered the US to be biased against their interests and pro-Israel and this confirms it, why should they listen to the people who want to achieve a Palestine State by peaceful means when they kicked in the teeth at every twist and turn? The militants have just gained a brigade of new volunteers and elsewhere Daesh/Isis will be rubbing their hands at this propaganda gift. ..."
"... Tillerson and co represent the continuation of the NeoCon doctrine of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Its foreign policy lead by oil and gas interests. Trump really is busy shoring up his constituency base for the future with tax cuts for old money and oligarchs, while the right wing christian brigade which is also seriously loaded (its big business) are of cause delighted with the Jerusalem embassy decision. It also helps an embattled Likud establishment which is under the kosh and faces huge challenges to get reelected. ..."
"... Standard Republican playbook: when things are going badly at home, pick a fight in the middle east. This was timed to distract from Deutsche Bank releasing Trump's financial records to Muller. Expect Trump to escalate as Muller closes in - my guess is he'll bomb Iran, but who knows... ..."
"... There is one benefit from Trump's decision. It is now fully clear that the USA is foursquare behind the Israelis and has always been so. Far from being and "honest broker" for peace they haveaccepted for 40 years any initiative the Israelis have made to ectend theor land area. ..."
"... Large parts of West Jerusalem were occupied by Zionist militias in 1948. Including the most expensive neighborhoods today, Qatamon, Talbiyeh, Baqa. All ethnically cleansed. The rest of the city was occupied by force in 1967. Jerusalem has been an Arab city for centuries, Muslim Jewish and Christian. European settlers have very little to do with it. ..."
"... Apart from all the other reasons for Kushner not having the leading role in the middle east, his financial support to settlers should automatically rule him out of any participation in brokering deals between Palestine and Israel. How can someone who is actively supporting illegal settlements have any semblance of being neutrality? However, in terms of the ethics of the Trump administration, it is simply business as usual. ..."
"... But what underlies all this is waning US and Saudi power in the region. They might burn the place down but they cannot remake it. The Saudis have devastated Yemen, killed thousands of children, and overseen a cholera epidemic. And still they can't defeat the Houthis. Their proxies have been routed in Syria and Iraq. The Qatar blockade has failed. So has the gambit to reshape Lebanon. ..."
"... Kushner is a toady duplicitous operator no doubt, but the whole American Israeli Saudi vision for the region is a nightmare that has no chance of success. ..."
"... Trump's announcement in recognising Jerusalem as Israeli capital shows his cunning strategic genius. It has united the governments of the Muslim Middle East in coming together and made it more unlikely that Saudi Arabia could align with Israel in triggering a wider conflict with Iran without incurring huge public disapproval within the country. ..."
"... The Guardian also ran an overly-reverential article about the Saudi crown prince a while back. It's worrying that they and the Americans are doing all of this with hardly a murmur of disapproval. Where's the UN resolution and sanctions? Where's the sanctions from the EU? America will veto everything at the UN and the EU mostly does what America wants it to do. Shows how useless the major organisations really are. I used to think that the EU was a good counter to American power, but they seem to have joined forces with the US recently, which is worrying when you have an unpredictable American president like Trump. ..."
"... Kushner is totally out of his depth and playing with fire. The damage done by the shambolic Trump maladministration will take years, if not decades, to repair. ..."
"... He wanted to tick off a box on his lunatic list of campaign pledges before Christmas. Consequences schmonsequences. I think he's also a willing tool of the end of times, rapture crazy Christian fundamentalists. ..."
"... I assume the announcement that the US now recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was more to do with Trump attempting to deflect interest away from Mueller now that he, his family and other chums in the administration are coming under financial scrutiny by the inquiry. At a stroke its certainly made Kushner's job in the Middle East much-harder if not impossible and surely makes him a target for every disaffected Palestinian. ..."
he entire Middle East, from Palestine to Yemen, appears set to burst into flames after this week. The region was already teetering
on the edge, but recent events have only made things worse. And while the mayhem should be apparent to any casual observer, what's
less obvious is Jared Kushner's role in the chaos.
Kushner is, of course, the US president's senior advisor and son-in-law. The 36-year-old is a Harvard graduate who seems to
have a hard time
filling in forms correctly .
He repeatedly failed to mention his meetings with foreign officials on his security clearance and
neglected
to report to US government officials that he was co-director of a foundation that raised money for Israeli settlements, considered
illegal under international law. (He is also said to have
told Michael Flynn last December to call UN security council members to get a resolution condemning Israeli settlements quashed.
Flynn called Russia.)
In his role as the president's special advisor, Kushner seems to have decided he can remake the entire Middle East, and he is
wreaking his havoc with his new best friend, Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, the 32-year-old who burst on to the
international scene by
jailing many members of his country's ruling elite, including from his own family, on corruption charges.
Days before bin Salman's unprecedented move, Kushner was with the crown prince in Riyadh on an unannounced trip. The men are
reported to have stayed up late, planning strategy while swapping stories. We don't know what exactly the two were plotting,
but Donald Trump later
tweeted
his "great confidence" in bin Salman.
But the Kushner-bin Salman alliance moves far beyond Riyadh. The Saudis and Americans are now privately pushing a new "peace"
deal to various Palestinian and Arab leaders that is more lop-sided toward
Israel than ever before.
Ahmad Tibi, a Palestinian parliamentarian in the Israeli Knesset,
explained the
basic contours of the deal to the New York Times: no full statehood for Palestinians, only "moral sovereignty." Control over disconnected
segments of the occupied territories only. No capital in East Jerusalem. No right of return for Palestinian refugees.
This is, of course, not a deal at all. It's an insult to the Palestinian people. Another Arab official cited in the Times story
explained that the proposal came from someone lacking experience but attempting to flatter the family of the American president.
In other words, it's as if Mohammed bin Salman is trying to gift Palestine to Jared Kushner, Palestinians be damned.
Next came Donald Trump throwing both caution and international law to the wind by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
But it's not just Israel, either. Yemen is on the brink of a major humanitarian disaster largely because the country is being
blockaded by Saudi Arabia. Trump
finally spoke
out against the Saudi measure this week, but both the state department and the Pentagon are said to have been privately urging Saudi
Arabia and the UAE to ease their campaign against Yemen (and Lebanon and Qatar) for some time and to little impact. Why? Because
Saudi and Emirati officials believe they "have tacit approval from the White House for their hardline actions, in particular from
Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner," journalist Laura Rozen
reported .
The Kushner-bin Salman alliance has particularly irked secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Kushner reportedly leaves the state
department completely out of his Middle Eastern plans. Of special concern to Tillerson, according to
Bloomberg News , is Kushner's talks with bin Salman regarding military action by Saudi Arabia against Qatar. The state department
is worried of all the unforeseen consequences such a radical course of action would bring, including heightened conflict with Turkey
and Russia and perhaps even a military response from Iran or an attack on Israel by Hezbollah.
Here's where state department diplomacy should kick in. The US ambassador to Qatar could relay messages between the feuding parties
to find a solution to the stand-off. So what does the ambassador to Qatar have to say about the Kushner-Salman alliance? Nothing,
since there still is no
confirmed
ambassador to Qatar.
What about the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia? That seat's also vacant. And the US ambassador to Jordan, Morocco, Egypt? Vacant,
vacant, and vacant. What about assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs, a chief strategic post to establish US policy in the
region? No one's been nominated. Deputy assistant secretary for press and public diplomacy? Vacant.
It's partly this vacuum of leadership by Tillerson that has enabled Kushner to forge his powerful alliance with bin Salman,
much to the detriment of the region. And in their zeal to isolate Iran, Kushner and bin Salman are leaving a wake of destruction
around them.
The war in Yemen is only intensifying. Qatar is closer to Iran than ever. A final status deal between Israel and the Palestinians
seems all but impossible now. The Lebanese prime minister went back on his resignation. And the Saudi state must be paying the Ritz-Carlton
a small fortune to jail key members of the ruling family over allegations of corruption.
There's a long history of American politicians deciding they know what's best for the Middle East while buttressing their
autocratic allies and at the expense of the region's ordinary people. (The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has traditionally
provided the rationale for America and its allies in the region, and
his recent sycophantic portrayal of bin Salman certainly didn't disappoint!)
But the Kushner-bin Salman alliance also represents something else. Both the US and Saudi Arabia are concentrating power into
fewer and fewer hands. And with fewer people in the room, who will be around to tell these men that their ideas are so damaging?
Who will dare explain to them how they already have failed?
Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of the award-winning books How Does It Feel To Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America
Topics Trump administrationOpinionUS foreign policy
We've made war all over the world for decades, sponsored coups, propped up dictators all so our own ruling elites can make out
like bandits. We are a rogue state and becoming an oligarchy too.
In 1948 my father, who knew the Middle East well, said of the creation of Israel 'it will never work'. Of course, throwing
thousands of people off their land is not the best way to create a peaceful country. And, while the Western guilt about the Holocaust
furthered the creation of a homeland for the Jews, the plight of the Palestinians was completely neglected.
The increasing encroachment by Israel's settlements have been making the only creditable solution - the two states -increasingly
difficult. Now Trump's declaration over Jerusalem has made the situation completely impossible.
I think you need a more cogent "analysis" than that. It doesn't really say anything, does it. There's religion everywhere, so
what's specific about the middle East? Start from that question and you may get somewhere.
The Trump administration has certainly increased tensions in the area...significantly. Much of this seems to have to do with
challenging Iran's influence in the area. I suspect that is why Saudi Arabia and Trump are in cahoots. Saudi Arabia wants to be
the new dominant country in the region and Iran is their main competitor. I expect a new war in the region against Qatar/Iran
and Yemen. And we all know where Kushner will place his allegiance.
One of the interesting things to me about all this is that Kushner is really the major focus right now in the Russia investigation.
He has clearly been implicated in crimes for which he will be indicted. And soon. I have a hard time (in addition to the overwhelming
everything else) with the fact that the President would give Kushner so much influence in the discussion. He's about to be indicted!!!
Why would anyone negotiate with him?
The Zionist settler state helping to spread its illegal settlements across the Palestinians land with the help needed of the US,
UK and the House of Saud
The book Allies for Armageddon by Victoria Clark states that right-wing Israeli political groups exploit the
Christian Fundamentalists in American into giving Israel their support and funding, as the latter believe Israel's full control
of Jerusalem etc will bring forth the rapture.
Oh man, and all this while Trump runs a distractionary, hedge fund supporting operation to allow tax avoiders to now have access
to their off shore cash at a lower tax rate. Where is the infrastructure rebuilding or are Trump supporters blinded even more
now by Trumps enlarging butt cheeks blaming Obama and Bush.
Good questions. Trump has declared that the department should be reduced significantly. The vacant posts are partly due to
that and partly due to the fact that Tillerson has rejected most of the administration's recommendations because of their being
political picks.
Tillerson in the mean time seems to have barricaded himself behind a very few loyal lieutenants. He has not been able or
interested in enabling or supporting the rest of the department.
Trump constantly ridicules Tillerson, privately and publicly and Tillerson called Trump a moron after a meeting in which
Trump expressed his desire to increase our nuclear arsenal 10 times. Finally, Trump's vision of foreign policy is to have
it concentrated in the White House instead of the State Department and Trump is totally uninterested in ANY of the State Department's
advice or consultation. I guess the answer to your question is "all of the above".
I get the impression that Trump is moving quickly with the Mueller investigation closing its net.
Until the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital the US could at least pretend to be an honest peace broker in the
ME/Palestine issue - they have now dropped even this. The Palestinians have always considered the US to be biased against their
interests and pro-Israel and this confirms it, why should they listen to the people who want to achieve a Palestine State by peaceful
means when they kicked in the teeth at every twist and turn? The militants have just gained a brigade of new volunteers and elsewhere
Daesh/Isis will be rubbing their hands at this propaganda gift.
Hopefully Trump won't last much longer - but that means a President Pence and if you watch Trump's speech announcing this
he is there in the background nodding. One set of religious nutcases are egging on another lot and that's not going to be good
for the Middle East.
Tillerson and co represent the continuation of the NeoCon doctrine of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Its foreign policy lead by oil
and gas interests. Trump really is busy shoring up his constituency base for the future with tax cuts for old money and oligarchs,
while the right wing christian brigade which is also seriously loaded (its big business) are of cause delighted with the Jerusalem
embassy decision. It also helps an embattled Likud establishment which is under the kosh and faces huge challenges to get reelected.
Standard Republican playbook: when things are going badly at home, pick a fight in the middle east. This was timed to distract
from Deutsche Bank releasing Trump's financial records to Muller. Expect Trump to escalate as Muller closes in - my guess is he'll
bomb Iran, but who knows...
There is one benefit from Trump's decision. It is now fully clear that the USA is foursquare behind the Israelis and has
always been so. Far from being and "honest broker" for peace they haveaccepted for 40 years any initiative the Israelis have made
to ectend theor land area.
Just one question for Israel which all other countries in the world can answer easily: Where are the frontiers of your nation
?
Last week there were crowds of people in the streets protesting at the corruption within Netenyahu's government, potentially very
dangerous in respect to instigating investigations. A distraction was necessary and Trump handed him a loaded one with the Embassy
debacle. Of course things are going to escalate, deaths, bombings, threats, retaliation. Now the streets will be filled with people
supporting 'strongman' Netenyahu, demanding reprisals and safety measures. Job done. But at what cost?
I'm not saying it should be ignored, not at all. I was simply making the point that the Palestinians will see things very differently,
and any solution, if there is one, can only be found in a compromise.
Jared is indeed responsible for what is happening. It was very obvious two years ago that Trump had not the slightest idea of
politics in the region. Also Trump's astonishing characteristic of actually listening to people, and being persuaded by whoever
has his ear, is unprecedented in the presidency.
Jared is a member of what can only be called a cult, far removed from the mainstream
of American jews. Jared's views manifestly place his interpretation of what is good for Israel ahead of what is good for the American
people, and even ahead of what is in fact the majority viewpoint among Israelis. There are limits to what an American president
can do, and this embassy issue is mostly window dressing.
But what is important is that the international community now step in to offset trump's position and make it clear that Israel's
policies are not rewarded
The PLO founding charter only claimed Gaza as Palestinian land. Before Israel recaptured the eastern part of Jerusalem from Jordan,
not the Palestinians.
This is the Empire in a further excess of dysfunction. The 'benevolent hegemon' of the 'new world order' often talked about in
the post Cold War era has morphed into a poker table of over-entitled dick-swingers gambling with other people's money, countries
and lives.
And of course Trump and his dubious entourage arrive after several terms of both Republican and Democrat misrule. George W
Bush plumbed new depths of cock-eyed middle eastern policy, which often seemed to have been prompted by war criminal Ariel Sharon
and Israel. Meanwhile the Democrats mixed with the Wall Street financiers, facilitating the liberalisation of the finance sector,
and the culture of debt dependency and asset-stripping - 'vulture capitalism' - which has only grown more ruthless since the financial
crash of 2008.
Large parts of West Jerusalem were occupied by Zionist militias in 1948. Including the most expensive neighborhoods today,
Qatamon, Talbiyeh, Baqa. All ethnically cleansed. The rest of the city was occupied by force in 1967. Jerusalem has been
an Arab city for centuries, Muslim Jewish and Christian. European settlers have very little to do with it.
Trump's announcement represents nothing less than the theft of the putative Palestinian capital of East Jerusalem. His announcement
is illegal under international law and contravenes all previous diplomatic agreements on the subject. What the wider world is
finally starting to see is that US conservatives and the Israeli government do not want a peace deal, they want capitulation and
to turn the Palestinians into non-people.
Trump and his people would like a war. They don't really care where. Because the main US export is war stuff..our owners make
money from war..any war, anywhere.
The days when the US with the Israelis in tow would rule over this region are finished. The one good thing about Trumps Jerusalem
debacle is that it makes clear how dead the fiction of the two state solution is. And though it scares the racists and supremacists,
we are moving closer and closer to one democratic secular state.
Apart from all the other reasons for Kushner not having the leading role in the middle east, his financial support to settlers
should automatically rule him out of any participation in brokering deals between Palestine and Israel. How can someone who is
actively supporting illegal settlements have any semblance of being neutrality? However, in terms of the ethics of the Trump administration,
it is simply business as usual.
But what underlies all this is waning US and Saudi power in the region. They might burn the place down but they cannot remake
it. The Saudis have devastated Yemen, killed thousands of children, and overseen a cholera epidemic. And still they can't defeat
the Houthis. Their proxies have been routed in Syria and Iraq. The Qatar blockade has failed. So has the gambit to reshape Lebanon.
Kushner is a toady duplicitous operator no doubt, but the whole American Israeli Saudi vision for the region is a nightmare
that has no chance of success.
Trump's announcement in recognising Jerusalem as Israeli capital shows his cunning strategic genius. It has united the governments
of the Muslim Middle East in coming together and made it more unlikely that Saudi Arabia could align with Israel in triggering
a wider conflict with Iran without incurring huge public disapproval within the country.
Trump is advancing the cause of Humanity by means that less appreciative and simple minds cannot fathom. All governments in
the Middle East will be far more fearful in not knowing what Trump might do next or why. This is the secret essence of power and
diplomacy in keeping others guessing and thus less likely to feel they have his support.
It's all part of a long term master plan whereby Trump could extricate the US from having much of a role in the Greater Middle
East. Governments will have to compete before Trump for influence and raise their game and money before he will deal from strength.
Trump is playing all the rival forces off to get the best deal and to preserve and enhance peace.
The Guardian also ran an overly-reverential article about the Saudi crown prince a while back. It's worrying that they and
the Americans are doing all of this with hardly a murmur of disapproval. Where's the UN resolution and sanctions? Where's the
sanctions from the EU? America will veto everything at the UN and the EU mostly does what America wants it to do. Shows how useless
the major organisations really are. I used to think that the EU was a good counter to American power, but they seem to have joined
forces with the US recently, which is worrying when you have an unpredictable American president like Trump.
Kushner is totally out of his depth and playing with fire. The damage done by the shambolic Trump maladministration will take
years, if not decades, to repair. These years will be looked back on as those during which America slid into disaster. Where
are Trump's babysitters when you need them? They need to keep an eye on Baby Kushner too.
He wanted to tick off a box on his lunatic list of campaign pledges before Christmas. Consequences schmonsequences. I think
he's also a willing tool of the end of times, rapture crazy Christian fundamentalists.
I assume the announcement that the US now recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was more to do with Trump attempting
to deflect interest away from Mueller now that he, his family and other chums in the administration are coming under financial
scrutiny by the inquiry. At a stroke its certainly made Kushner's job in the Middle East much-harder if not impossible and surely
makes him a target for every disaffected Palestinian.
Jared, who needs enemies when you've got a father-in-law like Donald.
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic
journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented
an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with
all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was
their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.
The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There
was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse
post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill
articles from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have
a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the
political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas
and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia
in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported
the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave
..
I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the
Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive
in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a
'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth
the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on
MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank
videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original
being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear
on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their
ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear
not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed
outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a
French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's
evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant
in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders
for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is
baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst
it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy
to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell
us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the
Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
"... The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. ..."
"... Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant . ..."
"... By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another. ..."
"... I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. ..."
"... At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation. ..."
"... The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore. ..."
"... John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day. ..."
"... So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism? ..."
"... In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave. ..."
"... I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..."
"... Browder is a spook. ..."
"... This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media. ..."
"... In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes ..."
"... I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up. ..."
"... The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy. ..."
"... The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket.. ..."
"... The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia? ..."
Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic
standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary
statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all
officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their
dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many,
people still remember.
Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international
crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles
from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods
..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the
breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political
right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions
and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not underdstand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in
the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the
rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave.
I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible
and seperate the Truths it containedf from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that pepeople were actually burned
alive in England for smuggling the Bible in english translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such
a 'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the
filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM
as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilising our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos.
Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being
and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled:
"MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel"
However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous
critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT
is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those
who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut.
RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake
news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told).
Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority.
The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless
and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn
out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of
$145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us
with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish
government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
This article is two years old, but still sounds current. The only difference now is that the conflict between Western nationalists and
neoliberal central government of President Poroshenko became more acute. Nationalists do not understand that "The Moor has done his duty, Moor can go" and neoliberal government of Poroshenko do not need
(and actually is afraid of) them.
"... Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. ..."
"... So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened. ..."
"... So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades. ..."
"... "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders. ..."
"... But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas. ..."
"... They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people. ..."
"... The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict ..."
"... In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr. ..."
"... the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson. ..."
"... In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news) ..."
"... For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians. ..."
"... It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia. ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot"). ..."
"... The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine. ..."
The distrust between the West and the rest of Ukraine is not 14 months old. It has always existed. Since the War at the very
list. Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. Western Ukrainians would call everyone a moscovite, and
in the East and the South, the Russians were neutral because their lives were much closer to Russia than to all this Ukrainian
bullshit. So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass
for Russians there not to feel threatened.
So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades.
Systematic
A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine"
with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.
Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,
In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko
said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be
delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that
I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization
"- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.
With all the hot headed claims of how the Soviet Union just grabbed the piece of land from Poland, Ukraine has a good chance
to correct those misdeeds. Give West Ukraine to Poland, Transkarpathia - to Hungary, and the South West - to Romania. That would be restoring historical
injustice.
vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:18
But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their
natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas.
Besides, federalization may or may not protect them. Kiev may or may not adhere to rules in the future, there will be a tax
issue, there will be cultural issues as Kiev will try to Ukrainize those areas subtly - you know those programs that are not anti-Russian
per se but that increase Ukrainian presence, thus diluting the original population. Remaining under the same roof with Kiev and
L'vov isn't really the best solution for Donbass if they want to preserve their independence and identity.
SallyWa -> VladimirM 10 Feb 2015 18:16
They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists
and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention
to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people.
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists
and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded
responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing
nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate
who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
erpiu 10 Feb 2015 17:59
The focus on Putin and geopolitics forces the actual ukr people out of the picture and blurrs understanding.
The maidan was a genuinely popular NW-ukr rebellion after NW-ukr had lost all recent pre-2014 elections to the culturally Russian
majority of voters mainly in SE-ukr.
In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr.
the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are
there to give this majority a lesson.
USA+EU weapons would only help the punitive "pacification" of SE ukr, the place that was deciding UKR elections until the coup.
The real festering conflict is the incompatibility of the anti-Russian feelings in NW ukr (little else is shared by the various
maidan factions) with the cccp/russian heritage of most people in SE ukr... that incompatibility is the main problem that needs
to be "solved".
Neither the maidan coup nor yanukovich&the pre-coup electoral dominance of SE ukr voters were ever stable solutions.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 17:57
In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko,
a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news)
SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 17:51
Ukraine's Economy Is Collapsing And The West Doesn't Seem To Care
For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent
economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to
beat back the Russians.
It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw
materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers.
According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent
figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much
greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia.
During WW 2 Draft dodging was almost unheard of. The war was perceived as "just", a righteous cause. Thus, men correctly saw
it as their duty to take up arms against fascism.
During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were
in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by
the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot").
The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war.
People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only
the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine.
In reality Ukraine is run by neoliberals. Still this is an interesting propaganda twist. Actually "antisemitism" bait works perfectly well
in most cases.
80% of the readers will not read more than that headline.
The first paragraph:
Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.
Of those 20% of the readers who will read the first paragraph only one forth will also read the
second one. The "anti-semitic" accusation has thereby been planted in 95% of the readership. Now
here is the second paragraph:
Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that
Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".
Saying that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were "miserable representatives of the great American
people" would be "anti-American"? What is anti-semitic in calling "the Jewish people" "great"?
The AFP reporter and editor who put that up deserve an Orwellian reward. It is one of the most
misleading quotations I have ever seen. Accusing Zakharchenko of anti-semitism when he is actually
lauding Jews.
Now I do not agree with Zakharchenko. There is
no such
thing as "the Jewish people" in the sense of a racial or national determination. There are people
of various nationalities and racial heritages who assert that they follow, or their ancestors followed,
religious Jewish believes. Some of them may have been or are "great".
But that does not make them "the Jewish people" just like followers of Scientology do not make
"the Scientologish people".
Saker has a link to the youtube, the audio in Russian with English subtitles. It begins at
about 12:30.
@3
When Sarkozy came in AFP really hit the skids. Like the NYTimes and Bush XLIII.
Lysander | Feb 3, 2015 12:02:09 PM | 13
What Zacharchenko did that was unforgivable is to draw attention to the fact that Kiev's current
leadership is largely Jewish. From Yats to Petro (Waltzman) Poroshenko To Igor Kolomoiski. No
matter how gracefully Zach would put it, it is the content that they hate.
Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I guess there are some who would rather you
not notice.
Right-wing nazi-rag KyivPost has a miserable coverage of same piece. "Agence France-Presse:
Russia's guy says Ukraine run by 'miserable Jews'" Zhakharchenko is "Russia's guy," his picture
under the headline with a totally unrelated caption, subtitled by the first paragraph of the AFP
fake "news" (sic!)"Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.", and a link to Yahoo news reproducing
the AFP piece in full.
Zionazi thieves stole the word "semitic" to mean "Jews," when in fact it comprehends many other
languages and peoples. Zhakharchenko's AFP phony "anti-Semitic jibe" would be insulting to all
these many peoples.
"...Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and
20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and
regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the Sinai Peninsula and Malta..."
...The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native
tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associated language family.[35][36] The term "anti-Semite",
however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards
Jews in particular...[37]
Yet another historical theft by the so-called "chosen" crooks.
Today we know that the
stupid
denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was
part of the plan
for the
coup in Ukraine. On of distinct features of psychopaths is a lack of 'strategic empathy'. One one
commenter noted: "for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial
oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with Putin, or only in so far
as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i "
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of serious miscalculations. ..."
"... Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet would be if the two countries cooperated. ..."
"... for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i ..."
"... it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet ..."
"... 2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris. ..."
"... I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics, because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped. ..."
"... It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat of fascism. ..."
"... blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief. ..."
"... Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. ..."
"... The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over. Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the same paragraph, and literally nothing else. ..."
"... In the end they often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good as a win. ..."
"... It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya .... ..."
"... Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries, or their history. ..."
"... It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist, grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush Jr., can graduate with a B- average. ..."
"... Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons. ..."
"... It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of the "non-poodle" components of Europe. ..."
"... It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good and for ill, for better and for worse. ..."
"... I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell. ..."
"... "It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums even if he wishes to." ..."
That illegal regime change was itself part of a bigger plan to restart a cold war, which will
allow the U.S. to assert even more control over Europe, and eventually for regime change in Russia.
I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves
and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves. As my
Do Svidanya Sochi
piece said:
The Russians will be very proud of these games. They will be grateful to their government and
president for having delivered them. The internal and external message is understood: Russia has
again found itself and it is stronger than ever.
The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of
serious miscalculations.
My hope for 2015 is that any miscalculations will be avoided and that peace will mostly prevail.
My very best wishes to all of you for a happy year 2015.
On what you say: 'Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western"
propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine.' This strikes me as placing too
much emphasis on design as opposed to miscalculation, or perhaps, as this blogpost suggests, a
lack of 'strategic empathy':
http://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/the-need-for-strategic-empathy/
GoraDiva | Dec 31, 2014 1:33:23 PM | 6
Best to you and thanks for running a great blog!
Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and
lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if
we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet
would be if the two countries cooperated.
Combining Russian knowledge and creativity with American ingenuity and entrepreneurship...
- yes, one can only dream. All we have now is an unstoppable desire to dominate and a complete
failure of imagination. But nothing lasts forever... so let's hope for a brighter and more honest
future.
Oliver Stone on the narrative
USA In
Ukraine.
Always love those comments, 2,473 and counting. Links to Pepe Escobar's analysis "The
new European 'arc of instability,'" which indicates growing turbulence in 2015, as the US
cannot tolerate the idea of any rival economic entity.
james | Dec 31, 2014 6:56:35 PM | 17
hey sloth.. for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial
oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in
so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i
live in canada and when i see the country being raped by corps that have only as much concern
for the environment as our politicians will demand, i get discouraged. these same politicians
don't represent me or ordinary canucks, but these same corps wanting to take the resources while
giving few jobs in return..
it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for
global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet..
they will switch to another whore when the us$ is no more.. this isn't about hero worship..
it's about recognizing how we in the west are being conned and lied to by financial interests
who own the press and have nothing to do with my best interests.. no hero worship on my part.
you saying folks put putin on a pedestal is your own wishful thinking bullshit.
okie farmer | Dec 31, 2014 7:05:26 PM | 18
BBC World Service this morning said Moscow's riot police had dispersed Navalny's demonstrators
keeping them off the sidewalks etc. I watched a live feed of the demonstration for hours, I counted
about 80 demonstrators and about 20 police. Actually the demonstration was in a small plaza and
no one was "dispersed". The police, however, were on the sidewalks watching the demonstrators
in the plaza, which BBC turned on it's head for propaganda purposes.
Copeland | Dec 31, 2014 8:43:40 PM | 23
2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly
as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat
oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious
that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than
they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris.
I go into the New Year cheering b, our host at this bar. And I feel so much respect for those
among us who resist, who constantly refuse to capitulate to the Forces of Darkness; and so I believe
the spirit that sustains us will be here in abundance, in 2015: solidarity, imagination and ingenuity,
indignation and revolt, love and catharsis, all strength of character to encourage, and yes, an
ample measure of good luck.
May we live to see a better year.
Demian | Dec 31, 2014 10:18:13 PM | 26
To address the matter of the Sochi Olympics. I had wondered about what the performances were
like, and since I don't have a TV, b's linking to a video of the highlights was the first opportunity
I had to see what the Russians had done in an apparent effort to represent Russia as a solid part
of Europe. (This is what reports said was the purpose of putting so much effort into these Olympics.
Warning: I am not into ballet.)
I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world
is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics,
because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights
of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped.
This is some of the best film making I have ever seen. Every single scene in the Rammstein video
is mind blowing. Particularly notable are the sequence with the girls swinging their arms in tandem
and the women and men diving into water. As far as I know, there is nothing like that elsewhere
in cinema. It is a war crime that with cinematography and editing like that, Riefenstahl wasn't
permitted by the occupying powers to continue making films.
It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and
ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag
taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not
taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat
of fascism.
Compared to Olympia, what the Russians did with the Sochi Olympics is nothing but Kitsch.
And in addition to Saker himself and Paul Craig, there is the WHITE PAPER posted by the former
and alluded to by the latter :
The DOUBLE HELIX:
CHINA-RUSSIA. Seems very solid.
And towards the end, the Larchmonter makes some interesting observations on North Korea, and
so, obliquely on the 'Lost U.S. Credibility On Cyber Claims'.
I don't see b or this blog in that way, but blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist
and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling
class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief.
But Putin's actions show he _is_ a real Russian nationalist, and he has a real-world,
non-imperialist understanding of what Russian nationalism covers and doesn't cover.
Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which
blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. I just wish he (and China) had
woken up sooner, in 2013, and maybe the rape of Libya could've been prevented. So, Putin is a
major actor in world affairs, he's on the anti-imperial side of history, and as far as I can tell
he is on the side of all who fight the Western financial borg's world dominance and austerity
crusade.
However, the next twenty years is about China and what it decides to do and who it decides
ultimately to ally with. Maybe Putin fever can be cured a bit if we imagine him checking his every
major move with Xi Jinping. Quiet Xi is the real man going forward. Not as much fun at parties,
not as animated facial expressions, not as direct or as artful in expression as Putin, but he
(and what he represents) is the real power.
And, if Xi and Putin remain allied, this may really turn out to be the Chinese century. Hope
no feelings are hurt but I don't guess it will be known as the Eurasian Century.
That said, the only thing I remember from Sochi are Yu Na and the other beautiful Asian figure
skaters.
Here is an event presented in the New York Times: a "sweeping roundup of dissidents":
[A performance artist] was detained at her mother's home hours before the event and released
Wednesday afternoon, along with several others.
That's a "sweeping roundup of dissidents" - briefly questioning someone at their mother's home.
Of course the job of the New York Times is to blow things out of proportion. How else to can
the NYTimes present the enforcement of mundane laws in Cuba (laws which all countries have) to
the American people, who see their police forces daily murder people? The NYTimes has a job to
do (as does any propagandist): they have to convince the home population that they are living
under the best conditions possible while giving the impression that life anywhere else is a dystopian
nightmare. Truth be told - for a significant sector of the US population, as events in NYC and
Ferguson have recently shown - the reality is exactly reversed!
Consider too, what she was briefly detained for - seeking to assemble without a permit - and
ask yourself: what happens in the United States when people attempt to assemble without a permit
in some of the most heavily trafficked areas of the US largest cities? What would occur, should,
say, the New Black Panther Party attempted to set up a rally in Times Square unannounced? What
happened, indeed, when the Obama Administration had enough of the Occupy Movement? The tear gassing,
the pepper spraying, the ejection of people from a park where they had a right to be.
Face the facts. The US allows no public displays of dissent without the approval of the
authorities. Yet what is presented in the US as "public order" is, in Cuba, portrayed as some
sort of totalitarian repression. This is sheer hypocrisy from those who have an interest in smashing
an independent government in Cuba, and convincing the American people that we live in a "free"
society.
It sort of says it all that she chose the location of the memorial to the sunken Maine Battleship
- the incident that brought the most recent wave of US Imperialism to Cuba.
"She then announced a news conference and public gathering on the Malecón, ...at the memorial
to the Maine, the American battleship that sank in Havana Harbor in 1898."
guest77 | Jan 1, 2015 2:53:39 PM | 34
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
remove the speck from your brother's eye.Matthew 7:5
There is no statement more appropriate to present to those sitting in the US, smug in their
conviction that their country is the righteous one, and that Russia and "evil" Putin are the aggressors.
The fact is, there is little in Russian behavior - at home or internationally - which one can
point at negatively in which the United States doesn't out do them by a long stretch. From the
military sphere, to the way it treats its smaller partners and neighbors, to the way it provides
for its people at home.
May 2015 be the year hypocrisy faces consequences.
Yes that's great stuff. Cant say I enjoy reading the comments but over and over it becomes
clear that the pro-US, pro NATO, pro IMF rah rah fools have NOTHING.
The most they can manage is "Putin lover" or "why don't you marry Putin if you love him so
much"...etc., some turn it around and say instead "why don't you move to Russia if you hate America
so much"..LOL.
The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over.
Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the
same paragraph, and literally nothing else. When they do attempt to argue the extant facts
they merely invert them and mimic the arguments of we anti imperialists, standing reality on its
head. These are classic, textbook reactionary rhetorical "styles"...They cant argue facts because
any facts they are willing to admit to almost never support their opinions. In the end they
often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good
as a win. The best way to deal with these trolls and shills ? Don't engage them directly
at all, but address their nonsense obliquely and restate the true facts clearly and repeatedly
.
fairleft@29- Watching the 2008 Chinese Olympics opening ceremony I remember being bowled over
by the precision and artistry. I remember thinking we in the US are truly screwed. With Sochi
not so much -- kitschy as you would expect. However I think Russia's actions in 2014 were duly
impressive. Your post made me think of Putin re Knut Rockne's quote: "One man practicing sportsmanship
is far better than a hundred teaching it."
It 's funny I know next to nothing of Xi Jingping- I'll have to remedy that this year.
But now several of these units, especially those linked to oligarchs or the far right, are
revealing a dark side. In recent months, they have threatened and kidnapped government officials,
boasted that they will take power if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fails to defeat Russia,
and they served as armed muscle in illegal attempts to take over businesses or seize local
governments.
In August, members of the Dnepr-1 battalion kidnapped the head of Ukraine's state land fund
to prevent him replacing an official deemed inimical to business interests. On Dec. 15, these
volunteer units interdicted a humanitarian convoy destined for the Russia-controlled Donbas,
where a major emergency is emerging.
On Dec. 23, the Azov brigade announced that it was taking control of order in the eastern
port city of Mariupol, without official approval from local or national officials.
Government prosecutors have opened 38 criminal cases against members of the Aidar battalion
alone.
A pattern of blatant disregard for the chain of command, lawlessness and racketeering is
posing a growing threat to Ukraine's stability at a critical juncture. Concern about volunteer
groupings is widely shared in the Poroshenko administration, which reportedly raised the question
of dealing with these dangers at a meeting in November of his National Security and Defense
Council.
Most alarming, however, is the role of Ukraine's interior minister, Arsen Avakov. Instead
of reining in these fighters, conducting background checks on their records and reassigning
those who pass muster, he instead has offered them new heavy weapons, including tanks and armored
personnel carriers, and given them enhanced brigade status. Amazingly, in September he even
named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region.
Equally worrying is the activity of Ihor Kolomoyskyy, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast.
Kolomoyskyy, who played a crucial and widely respected role in stabilizing his East Ukrainian
region, is now flouting central authority by interdicting aid convoys headed to the Donbas
and permitting brigades he finances to engage in activities that contravene the law.
What can be done? Poroshenko clearly wants this problem resolved but has been reluctant
or unable to act. For him to succeed will likely require coordination with Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk, who has also been slow to address the threat, possibly because Avakov is one of
his key political allies.
Now, we all know that Yatseniuk is Victoria Nuland's guy - so the US support war lordism in
Ukraine?
It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya ....
haha, here is how the author is described in that op-ed:
Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he co-directs the "Ukraine
in Europe" initiative.
The author complains about "warlordism" in Ukraine, but it is the "Ukraine in Europe" "initiative"
which has produced the warlordism. You really have to wonder how these people can live with themselves
and keep on producing such pieces which studiously ignore the obvious.
I couldn't agree with you more, GoraDiva. But you have to understand how badly educated we
Americans are. Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries,
or their history.
And, literally, no Americans know how well-educated Russians are who went to university under
the USSR system; they have no idea of the rigor. None. No one. They think Putin is some KGB agent
who studied at the equivalent of a Police Academy, and managed to get lucky and win a few elections,
and view him as someone similar to a Brooklyn mafia don. They don't know about Putin's Master's
and PhD degrees, or what they were in.
They don't know that Lavrov can run rings around Kerry intellectually, and speaks, what? Five
or six languages fluently?
They regurgitate what the former house-painter Sean Hannity thinks of Putin, who regurgitates
what he heard growing up on the streets of New York. These guys don't read.
I really don't understand why this blog became a living monument to Putin. At times, I think
that b's hatred of the US has something to do with the gutless murder of civilian Hamburgers
by allied bombers. On the other hand, the Red Army raped and murdered countless thousands of
German civilians. And rather unlike the Russians, the American occupation was colossally more
favorable to Hamburgers that was to anyone living in the Soviet bloc.
But the biggy is what Eisenhower did to German POWs just after the war. He killed a million,
dumped lye on them, and ground them into the dirt. Story in Saturday Night, 1989. Make sure you
scroll down to see the photos. Eisenhower made them live in hole in the ground. Eisenhower's Death Camps-The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two by historian James Basque http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html
It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist,
grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush
Jr., can graduate with a B- average.
And then the magic of connections and just doing what you're told can push an unqualified,
uninterested dolt all the way to the top or near top.
Looking at Obama/Biden, Bush/Cheney, the only one who seemed smart and who knew and cared about
what he was doing was the sociopath Cheney.
Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a
joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons.
A Presidential candidate who is engaged, very smart and well-informed sticks out like a sore
thumb and has a hard time earning the trust of the powers that be. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is
a good example. (She's done a lot (of horrible things) since then to earn the PTB's trust, though.)
For the reason that being smart, engaged and well-read means you are potentially independent-minded
in a sudden crisis. What if, for example, a sudden huge economic/mortgage crisis occurs and the
extremely obvious thing to do is help homeowners directly, let the foolish banks who bankrupted
themselves suffer the consequences, and pour money into public works and workers' pockets? In
such a crisis, the PTB wants a bored, conformist, "don't give a shit" President who'll do exactly
what Goldman Sachs tells him to do, not a smart, engaged, well-informed and potentially independent
thinker/decider.
So the U.S. will continue to have an intellectual deficit at the top, and Russia will continue
to win diplomatic and other battles with the U.S. even in situations where it's significantly
'outweighed'. Brains are too untrustworthy, they make the Wall Street boys nervous.
You have the same problem as b. The world is shades of grey not good and bad.
The "novorussian" side is fighting in the areas where Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs have interests
who lost when Yanukovich was ousted. By withdrawing his own Russian nationalist fanatics Putin
left the field to them. The non-destruction and shake down of Mariupol is a good case study of
what is going on. Kolomoisky (Dnepopetrovsk) is in a take over fight with Akhmetov (Donbass).
There seems to be an agreement between Putin, Poroshenko and the EU (devolution and Donbass
remaining part of Ukraine), just Poroshenko has not got the power (the security/military apparatus
is in the hands of the Yatseniuk/Avakov/Kolomoisky faction backed by Victoria Nuland) to deal.
Poroshenko's statements are devoid of any logic as he tries to cover the divide in his political
coalition. At the same time obviously, he is in it for himself. On the other hand there is the
issue of the funding of the Novorussian side. A lot of that will be a shake down of the oligarchs,
too, and the genie probably has come out of the bottle there, too.
There is something intriguing about the Dniepopetrovsk private civilian and military airport
run by Kolomoisky's airline. And there is a gap in the conspiracy theories of the usual Russian
linked, Western left media outlets.
Indian media is full of it, just google it.
According to reports in the media, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to take off at
1 PM from Frankfurt on his way back to India from Brazil where he had gone for a meeting of
the leaders of the BRICS countries. His flight eventually took off at 1:22 PM. Had Modi's flight
taken off at 1 PM as the earlier reports had indicated, it would have been in the vicinity
of the shooting within six minutes of the Malaysian Airlines flight being shot down. ... What
makes the claim that MH 17 was mistaken for an Ukrainian military plane a highly questionable
one is that the plane was just 20 miles from the Russian border and the Ukrainian government
would not dare provoke Russia by sending military planes to cross over into Russian airspace.
It is unlikely that the anyone could have mistaken a plane headed for Russia as an Ukrainian
military aircraft. ... Modi's election in May as the Indian Prime Minister caused a huge geopolitical
earthquake, and any harm to him will have great ramifications around the world.
Actually, Modi was on his return from Brazil where BRICS had just voted on the founding of
a BRICS development bank.
Now, this is a very good conspiracy theory with all the necessary ingredients. How come this
has been restricted to India?
This US imperialist propaganda piece must be written by one of the staff comedians! Bandera
is Che Guevara! Chocolate king Poroshenko fought on the barricades!
Notice the backhanded support to these n@zis? Our propaganda machine wants you to think
that only "Moscow" says Bandera fought on the side of Hitler and the N@zis. Notice how the
article tries to justify Bandera's fighting with the n@zis by blaming the 1930s famine -- but
not mentioning the famine affected the whole USSR and was made worse by US economic embargo
(just like today!)
These are the n@zis on whom our US government of hypocrites spent 5 billion of our tax dollars
to bring to power and overthrow an elected government. These n@zis have attacked all media
and parties in Ukraine that oppose the US puppet junta.
The people of the east are overwhelmingly Russian speaking working class people, miners
and factory workers, who refused their appointed oligarch governors and declared their independence
of the junta.
Our US government wants to turn Ukraine into a low wage colony and establish first-strike
nuclear missile bases in Ukraine directed against Russia. The restoration of capitalism in
Ukraine has brought disaster.
No surprise that some US politicians mingle with N@zis in Louisiana!
the nonpoodle parts of europe will have to be aware of sedition from its own peoples as with
the various Arab springs and Ukraine's Maidan, where locals serve to agitate for a foreign power
while talking about 'freedom and democracy'
Sergey Lavrov said on 15 Dec 2014: "We have overestimated the independence of the European
Union [from the US]." http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/767282
. Lavrov made that comment in contemplation of the trade sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia
last summer & autumn including particularly the manner in which the sanctions were discussed and
not debated by EU political society.
It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of
the "non-poodle" components of Europe. 'b' makes a bold declaration in his above post that
"I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves
and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves."
It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in
other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good
and for ill, for better and for worse.
I repeat, the "non-poodle parts of Europe" have no teeth in Europe. You've seen that consistently
in recent years, and you've no intelligent basis for supposing you're not going to be seeing it
in 2015.
I'm sorry that I did not make my intent clear. I've been posting about the dangers posed by
the militias and the rivalry btw. Poroshenko and Kolomoisky for a bit (good to see the WaPo has
caught up, as you advise in 39 -- NYT is my MSM paper-of-record of choice, so I don't see the
Post, thanks). I offered it as evidence of growing discord amongst the junta, not praise for Poroshenko's
virtue. I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert
themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell.
I see the junta as shades of black -- midnight, charcoal, jet, ebony, etc. The Opposition Bloc
is grey.
More grist for the mill -- nice pc. from Fort Russ, Is Poroshenko Preparing
for Peace or War?. The whole pc. is worth reading, thorough consideration of Poroshenko's
position, but here's the bottom line.
"It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work
on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides
will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums
even if he wishes to."
This is two years old exchange from the Guardian reader forum. Nothing changed...
Notable quotes:
"... The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America, is a good book to read, it documents boasts from the CIA that they controlled western media and at the press of a button could hear the same tune played all over the western world. ..."
"... The people in the 'western' world think their media is 'free', 'unbiased', 'investigated' but in sad reality it is far from any of those things. It is a mega phone for the narrative the govts of the west (primarily US, UK, EU and sadly Australia) want amplified. ..."
"... I am not sure how it works with the MSM. What I have noticed over the years, is that in certain times of war or geopolitical maneuvorings, the BBC and Guardian (and others), but especially those two, seem to have some sort of agreement with the Intelligence Services/Foreign Office to write subtle propaganda or lead with a certain narrative. ..."
"... This means, the producers or editors at the BBC have agreed with the Security services to allow them to control the media at certain times. Likewise, we see the same in the Guardian, especially at certain times. ..."
21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call
the media out on these things.
>It seems to me that the Intelligence Services have colonised the media. The Mighty Wurlitzer:
How the CIA Played America, is a good book to read, it documents boasts from the CIA that they
controlled western media and at the press of a button could hear the same tune played all over
the western world.
Really, it is up to Guardian and BBC journalists and broadcasters to take a long hard look
at themselves and ask why am I being made to sell war propaganda? the BBC news 24 channel had
someone on trying to talk up a war with Russia last night, as I was watching it I was
wondering if the BBC News presenter, an intelligent man, would have enough moral fibre to
realize he is being used to sell a warmongering narrative? But he didnt, which is why I can no
longer pay that organisation anymore money.
stregs101 -> RussBrown 9 Feb 2015 21:00
I agree.
The people in the 'western' world think their media is 'free', 'unbiased', 'investigated'
but in sad reality it is far from any of those things. It is a mega phone for the narrative
the govts of the west (primarily US, UK, EU and sadly Australia) want amplified.
Last week there was an article promoting 'full scale war' in relation to arming Kiev. This
type of reporting is actually deemed a 'crime against the peace' under Nuremberg.
By upholding the lies and fabrications of US foreign policy, the mainstream media is complicit
in war crimes. Without media propaganda, this military agenda under the guise of counter-terrorism would fall
flat, collapse like a deck of cards.
21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call
the media out on these things.
RussBrown -> seaspan 9 Feb 2015 19:54
I am not sure how it works with the MSM. What I have noticed over the years, is that in
certain times of war or geopolitical maneuvorings, the BBC and Guardian (and others), but
especially those two, seem to have some sort of agreement with the Intelligence
Services/Foreign Office to write subtle propaganda or lead with a certain narrative.
Take for
example the BBC headlines yesterday, top story was 15 people killed in Ukraine and calls to
arm Kiev against Russian aggression. Now the this was TOP news story, the BBC have totally
ignored reporting Ukrainian civilian massacres (over 5000 have died), until they are selling a
narrative they want to persuade everyone with, such as that we need to arm Kiev against
Russian aggression.
This means, the producers or editors at the BBC have agreed with the
Security services to allow them to control the media at certain times. Likewise, we see the
same in the Guardian, especially at certain times.
Now they should be twice concerned. But, in general, color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people
started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington)
protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this
Shaun Walker
Notable quotes:
"... Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong. ..."
"... The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY). ..."
"... Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. ..."
"... a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people. ..."
"... If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country ..."
"... if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons. ..."
"... Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian. ..."
"... In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy. ..."
"... Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue. ..."
"... A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev. Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well. Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe. ..."
"... Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks. ..."
"... And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine ..."
"... Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? ..."
"... Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority ..."
"... "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom." ..."
"... After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism. ..."
"... As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa. ..."
"... There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. ..."
"... Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you ..."
"... How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? ..."
The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan, said on Thursday it would fight any attempts to
bring Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to
the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine
president Viktor Yanukovych.
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people
suffer first," said Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's
United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in
Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear,
total propaganda, and no freedom."
BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate
slaughter and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job
I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:
The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to
the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.
As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014
- once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made
similar visits, that would be a problem, no?
TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21
Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still
don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself
informed.
jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19
You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.
The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e.
someone acceptable to the US government at the helm.
Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first
spend the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.
jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12
What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my
country.
I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting
democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for
Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in turn,
funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia
and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a
US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime minister who was
brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our
insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).
The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed
since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual
accounts.
Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they
are wrong.
Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09
He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable
20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in
Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated.
The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found
this timely. But we cannot blaim on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny him
self. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based society.
They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not
lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already
shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg to abroad for scripts.
The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure
he lost any groups with many Russians.
Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50
I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just
offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full of
aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists. There is
a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing
for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.
Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41
This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as
the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole
distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK was
told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK
with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a
child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator said BBC is out of their reach. But
guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.
Asimpleguest -> romans
International Observer
''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''
PeraIlic
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," said Nikolai
Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.
Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself
briefly:
An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov
Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.
Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily.
If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining
NATO?
That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that
America is a friend.
imperfetto
This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distorsions of what is
happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of
propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to
organise yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem
to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British
interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or
elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the
means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have
decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are
allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.
The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now
perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political
strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the
instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and
then the ARMY).
The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism,
scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the
'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will
occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs,
allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three
important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)
But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by
the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the
have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that
country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a
democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST
assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.
Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious
attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:
a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the
parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.
VladimirM
"The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia," said The Surgeon, whose
real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.
Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as
"beast" but what he said was closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just
stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.
These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the
current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer that will
get you up to speed....
The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and
Oligarchs
Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht
Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many
of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a
whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his secret police
chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly
non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many
Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many
Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic time trying to stir
Russophobia.
seventh
Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to
defend it.
Robert Sandlin -> seventh
Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the
police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of
Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to strike
Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in
Russia.
Bulagen
I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that
they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed
at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the wording
that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all
this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to
sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans (Russians).
jezzam -> Bulagen
All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic
values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely
because they would threaten his power.
sashasmirnoff -> jezzam
The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?
I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast
majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that
owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy,
frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.
The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to
horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things)
the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.
I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also
experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of
pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc.
All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.
One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty
and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would
like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That would totally
ruin the World Order.
Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan
Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already
taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?
Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin
Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have
the corner on black shirts!
WardwarkOwner
Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or
those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?
Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner
I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran,
Norway, Qatar, etc.
So what exactly is your point?
Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob
Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA
to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be
blind . in mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .
PullingTheStrings
If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a
popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America
*Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country
if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they
move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without
having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high
ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and
greedy reasons.
Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings
For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire
comment is an act of deflection.
The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest
economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold
all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb Moscow
apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.
Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any
protests with violent vigilante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.
Bob Vavich -> Jackblob
Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India
and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you
that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. I can also tell you that when I drove
through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post
apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can
go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the
assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".
Jackblob -> Bob Vavich
I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that
info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".
Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the
Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.
Hamdog
Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a
democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.
We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.
In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a
dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.
E1ouise -> Hamdog
Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliment* after he fled to Russia. Why
don't you know this yet?
secondiceberg -> E1ouise
Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him
out" the next day.
Bosula -> secondiceberg
Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the
Rada with weapons while the vote taken.
Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of
the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and
uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.
Sourcrowd
The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it
disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and
blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.
Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd
I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.
Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and
civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful
owners that were robbed during 1930-45.
I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you
appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking
about.
Bosula -> Sourcrowd
Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?
Bosula
A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan
group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.
Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic
and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.
Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in
common than they would like to believe.
TuleCarbonari -> Bosula
A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The
Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this
against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the
country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.
Flinryan
Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder
what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
MarcelFromage -> Flinryan
I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and
continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the
rest of the international community.
secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage
And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern
Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to
use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine.
Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.
Velska
CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements
favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.
To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not
sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly
Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.
Bosula -> Velska
You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.
secondiceberg -> Velska
What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do
and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?
What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment
you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim any
legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the U.S.
Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.
cichonio
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old
people suffer first,"
That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been
seen yet.
Also,
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"
I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.
Bosula -> cichonio
Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then?
How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have
with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing its own people, but
this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type
environment.
Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals.
Utterly bizarre.
secondiceberg -> cichonio
So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine
actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.
Bob Vavich -> cichonio
Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected
with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely,
the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged.
What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second
official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe.
Probably not.
SHappens
"Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding
conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready," said Yulia
Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.
This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont
mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.
They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing
Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened
in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead
total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."
ploughmanlunch
After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand
some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia.
That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism.
FlangeTube
"Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high
approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are
anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.
Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but
I would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a
say too.
As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for
crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers
were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against
elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive
of 40+ people in Odessa.
Sergei Konyushenko
Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?
FallenKezef
It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was
justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.
Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened
to a pro-Russian government it's ok.
I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.
Spaceguy1 One
The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations
The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet
after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.
Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure
for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then
ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it
seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were
apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.
It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in
Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of
Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.
This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir
people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting
at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere. There are
obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by
street disturbance and stone throwing.
Beckow
Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia said that they will come out and protest
in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. They said that their side also
needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.
That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever
demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tatoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western
connections. That's the way democracies should work.
About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an
interesting point. There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit"
for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on
streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?
Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this
case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues are
involved?
rezevici
Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the
"patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan
to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.
The ethics of Russians will be on display.
Anette Mor -> rezevici
There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but
chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part
in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform and
patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots.
Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition
which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating
even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists or
national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not
opposition. They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public
by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people
who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very complex process.
by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid,
everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle
thrown," said Sablin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no
evidence.
There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.
Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December
that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On
what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?
We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from
2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State
Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...
...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an
initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh
network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to continue to
communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several
Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.
Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?
All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine.
We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.
And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.
daffyddw
Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in
ages. Bless you all, little brothers.
susandbs12 -> daffyddw
Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.
Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.
Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different
views from you, so what?
LaAsotChayim
Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned
unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where
killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid"
implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?
How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's
government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!
Anette Mor -> Strummered
Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia
with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does
not bring any good.
A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net.
Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith, nationalities and social
groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came from USSR
including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there
is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per
nation, no matter how big or small.
The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest
nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People
in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of majority. That
is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for
Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.
EU Observer: EU mulls response to Russia's information war
The Netherlands is funding a study on how the EU can fight back against Russia's "information
war", in one of several counter-propaganda initiatives.
The Dutch-sponsored study was launched in the New Year by the European Endowment for Democracy
(EED), a Brussels-based foundation.
But little happened until the Netherlands stepped in with the EED grant after a passenger plane,
flight MH17, was shot down over east Ukraine killing 193 Dutch nationals and 105 other people.
Evidence indicates Russia-controlled rebels caused the disaster using a Russia-supplied rocket
system.
But Russian state media have tried to sow suspicion the Ukrainian air force did it in order to
prompt Western intervention in the conflict
Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, and the UK are drafting an informal paper on how EU institutions
and Nato can co-ordinate "strategic communications"
Its foreign ministry spokesman, Karlis Eihenbaums, told this website that around 15 EU states
back the project and that the news broadcasts should be available in Russia if they can get past
its "jamming system".
But Riga is trying to play down expectations of a quick result.
"I don't think we can come to an agreement among the 28 [EU leaders] to come up with a new TV
station in Russian. Euronews is already doing news in Russian, so it'll be difficult to get an additional
channel", Latvian PM Laimdota Straujuma told press in the Latvian capital on Wednesday (7 January).
Well-funded Russian broadcasters, such as RT, have hired big names, including former CNN anchor
Larry King, and air programmes in English, French, German, and Spanish as well as Russian.
Their work is backed up by pseudo-NGOs.
Putting the Dutch grant in perspective, the British think-tank, Chatham House estimates the Russian
"NGO" component alone is worth $100 million a year.
Western media have caught Russian media using fake pictures and fake witness accounts of alleged
Ukrainian atrocities.
Eihenbaums noted that any EU news channel "must be attractive, but with accurate information
it must not be a propaganda organ".
He cited RFE/RFL, a US-funded broadcaster, and the BBC as models because they do both Ukraine-critical
and Russia-critical stories.
###
If you can't smell the excrement off that, then get thee to a medic!
Now, considering the piece above, try not to hold back a large guffaw for this one!
Know that when they speak of
Kyrzbekistan, they're not just stenographers, they're incompetent stenographers.
Take what
they say, turn it upside down, and you'll have a better take on reality.
THE MERKEL MYSTERY. I, like many, thought, when the Ukraine crisis began, that German Chancellor
Merkel would prove to be key in settling it. This has not proved to be the case at all; in fact
she often throws more fuel on the fire. I believe that
Gilbert Doctorow may have
the answer. In essence, he believes that Berlin dreams the "pre-WWI dream of Mitteleuropa"
with cheap, docile workers in Poland, Ukraine and the others forever. Of course, it hasn't worked
out very well, but that, he thinks, was the plan. There was no "End
of History" after all; a rebirth of history it seems.
This is about neoliberalism, not about the structure of the university education and the amount of social courses required
to get an STEM degree. The article is a baloney in this sense. And because neoliberalism defy regulation Google and
Facebook were able to built " amazingly sophisticated, computer-driven engines for extracting users' personal information
and data trails, refining them for sale to advertisers in high-speed data-trading auctions that are entirely unregulated and
opaque to everyone except the companies themselves."
Notable quotes:
"... Put simply, what Google and Facebook have built is a pair of amazingly sophisticated, computer-driven engines for extracting users' personal information and data trails, refining them for sale to advertisers in high-speed data-trading auctions that are entirely unregulated and opaque to everyone except the companies themselves. ..."
"... Democracy in America ..."
"... All of which brings to mind CP Snow's famous Two Cultures lecture, delivered in Cambridge in 1959, in which he lamented the fact that the intellectual life of the whole of western society was scarred by the gap between the opposing cultures of science and engineering on the one hand, and the humanities on the other – with the latter holding the upper hand among contemporary ruling elites. Snow thought that this perverse dominance would deprive Britain of the intellectual capacity to thrive in the postwar world and he clearly longed to reverse it. ..."
"... Lack of education in the humanities is not the reason for misuse of the tech giant's products, as the author so emphatically states. It simply comes down to greed. That human drive to make more, more and more leads them to overlook things for the sake of making more. A class in political science or sociology is not going to change that. ..."
"... Zuckerberg and similar folks are guilty of the same thing that most people are - greed. Monetary greed is just one part. ..."
"... As for education, it's not easy to get an engineering or comp sci degree. But while you are getting hammered in classes that are far more complex than most other things taught on the campus, you do indeed have to take a variety of other non-technical electives outside of your technical major to complete the overall curriculum. ..."
"... This likely has been pointed out already, but the American University system requires all students to take a core of humanities classes regardless of major. SO they actually have been exposed to, most likely, a fair number of Western Civ, History, and Literature courses. Their deficiency I think lays more in the utopian roots of the internet and technology development of the 1990s. They have been strangely naive and ruthless at the same time, and its changing human interactions and society sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. ..."
"... Wow, if there ever was an example of why Trump won, the utter and complete self righteousness of the American liberal, this post is it. Congratulations. ..."
"... If you've every hung out in Silicon Valley with techies you'd know that mild sociopathy is indeed likely part of the problem. ..."
"... Capitalists will do what capitalists do. So ignoring social consequences in the pursuit of money is baked-in. Doesn't matter what your education is. In fact, class has more to do with their blindness than the lack of a liberal arts education. ..."
"... It ties in with what many of the fake-news-complainers are reluctant to discuss: there is an ocean of sociological/economic 'facts' that exist somewhere between 'easily-provable lie' and 'this may be a lie to the elite, but it is a true fact for the unwashed masses'. and in tandem with that: the uneasy questions about censorship that come with *any* attempt at regulating the press. ..."
"... This is too simple. The development of critical thought is the key thing and it isn't monopolized by any discipline. People without any qualifications and without much education can - and do - exercise critical ability. The problem is a cultural one. Consumerism and the pretend world in which people 'think' they can be what they want and live in make believe soaps is the problem. ..."
"... "If you have an issue with tech giants messing around with your personal data, don't give them your personal data." They'll take your personal data, regardless. Because they make money from selling it. ..."
One of the biggest puzzles about our current predicament with fake news and the weaponisation of social media is why the folks
who built this technology are so taken aback by what has happened. Exhibit A is the founder of Facebook,
Mark Zuckerberg
, whose political education
I recently chronicled . But he's not alone. In fact I'd say he is quite representative of many of the biggest movers and shakers
in the tech world. We have a burgeoning genre of "
OMG, what
have we done? " angst coming from former Facebook and Google employees who have begun to realize that the cool stuff they worked
on might have had, well, antisocial consequences.
Put simply, what Google and Facebook have built is a pair of amazingly sophisticated, computer-driven engines for extracting
users' personal information and data trails, refining them for sale to advertisers in high-speed data-trading auctions that are entirely
unregulated and opaque to everyone except the
companies themselves.
The purpose of this infrastructure was to enable companies to target people with carefully customised commercial messages and,
as far as we know, they are pretty good at that. (Though
some advertisers
are beginning to wonder if these systems are quite as good as Google and Facebook claim.) And in doing this, Zuckerberg, Google co-founders
Larry Page and Sergey Brin
and
co wrote themselves licenses to print money and build insanely profitable companies.
It never seems to have occurred to them that their engines could be used to deliver ideological and political messages
It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted ideological
and political messages to voters. Hence the obvious question: how could such smart people be so stupid? The cynical answer is they
knew about the potential dark side all along and didn't care, because to acknowledge it might have undermined the aforementioned
licenses to print money. Which is another way of saying that most tech leaders are sociopaths. Personally I think that's unlikely,
although among their number are some very peculiar characters: one thinks, for example, of Paypal co-founder
Peter Thiel – Trump's favourite techie; and Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber.
So what else could explain the astonishing naivety of the tech crowd? My hunch is it has something to do with their educational
backgrounds. Take the Google co-founders. Sergey Brin
studied mathematics and computer science. His partner, Larry Page, studied engineering and computer science. Zuckerberg dropped out
of Harvard, where he was studying psychology and computer science, but seems to have been more interested in the latter.
sWhy Facebook is in a hole over data mining | John Naughton
Now mathematics, engineering and computer science are wonderful disciplines – intellectually demanding and fulfilling. And they
are economically vital for any advanced society. But mastering them teaches students very little about society or history – or indeed
about human nature. As a consequence, the new masters of our universe are people who are essentially only half-educated. They have
had no exposure to the humanities or the social sciences, the academic disciplines that aim to provide some understanding of how
society works, of history and of the roles that beliefs, philosophies, laws, norms, religion and customs play in the evolution of
human culture.
We are now beginning to see the consequences of the dominance of this half-educated elite. As one perceptive observer
Bob O'Donnell puts it, "a liberal arts major familiar
with works like Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America , John Stuart Mill's
On Liberty , or even the work of ancient
Greek historians, might have been able to recognise much sooner the potential for the 'tyranny of the majority' or other disconcerting
sociological phenomena that are embedded into the very nature of today's social media platforms. While seemingly democratic at a
superficial level, a system in which the lack of structure means that all voices carry equal weight, and yet popularity, not experience
or intelligence, actually drives influence, is clearly in need of more refinement and thought than it was first given."
All of which brings to mind CP Snow's famous
Two Cultures lecture, delivered in Cambridge in 1959, in which he lamented the fact that the intellectual life of the whole of
western society was scarred by the gap between the opposing cultures of science and engineering on the one hand, and the humanities
on the other – with the latter holding the upper hand among contemporary ruling elites. Snow thought that this perverse dominance
would deprive Britain of the intellectual capacity to thrive in the postwar world and he clearly longed to reverse it.
Snow passed away in 1980, but one wonders what he would have made of the new masters of our universe. One hopes that he might
see it as a reminder of the old adage: be careful what you wish for – you might just get it.
Lack of education in the humanities is not the reason for misuse of the tech giant's products, as the author so emphatically
states. It simply comes down to greed. That human drive to make more, more and more leads them to overlook things for the sake
of making more. A class in political science or sociology is not going to change that.
Middle and high school in the US need to tackle more philosophy, history and other humanities instead of force feeding kids test
material for them to simply memorize. Then, lo and behold, by the time kids get into university, they may already have grasped
the basics of human analytical skills. Why wait till further education?
Wtf? All this hue and cry that Facebook has "ruined" democracy ... and I see you've actually bought into it. Holy cow, who knew
a few hundred thousand $$ gets Brexit and Trump done while $1 billion in actual adverts cannot elect Clinton?
Goodness, that's some powerful analytica, no? You guys should really hear yourselves ... you sound utterly deranged by this
Trump thing!
If we are all concerned, we can remedy 'the problem'. Chuck Cable, ( I did 7 years ago), get off facebook, twitter and the like.
We are all subject to the marketing, the allure of 'like' thinking, etc. Yet we need to 'grow up' mature, and be concerned about
this path. Our youth is our hope, but if they are indoctrinated and sucked into the social network mess, I do not see a future
or much hope. Yes, it is all about marketing, greed, and ego. Pretty difficult to overcome. Soul searching, integrity, and sincere
concern for democracy is crucial.
It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted
ideological and political messages to voters. Hence the obvious question: how could such smart people be so stupid?
So stupid? Is the author claiming to have known this in advance of it happening?
A yes...science. "Once they go up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department, says Werner Von Braun" (Tom Leher)
Man kind has always been willing to subjugate it's essential humanity for the elusive goal of "progress". The computer age is
no different.
Well, actually , they did. Slaves were not allowed to vote in the UK either. And, one must remember, it was the UK that introduced
slavery to North America which was, after all, a British colony ruled by British courts and British jurisprudence at that juncture.
Anyone who finishes engineering cannot be classified as a dim bulb. It's only understood by those that go through it how difficult
it is in comparison to other things. The complexity is hard to explain to anyone outside of it. Most people fail out or quit,
literally, and those are the ones that at least gave it a try. I watched many such people go on to the business or other schools
and rush a frat and barely study and ace their courses. They said straight up that it wasn't even close.
Zuckerberg and similar folks are guilty of the same thing that most people are - greed. Monetary greed is just one part.
Additionally, there's a ton of ego there to want to do things others haven't done or can't do or aren't doing, but ego is not
exclusive to the tech industry. They were negligent in looking the other way while their products were exploited and they hid
under freedom of speech, providing a functionality that isn't necessarily tied with or promotes nefarious conduct so they aren't
responsible when it does. There's no shortage of this through years - radio, TV, nuclear power, guns, drug paraphernalia, chemicals,
photo copiers, MP3 players and file copying services like Napster, on and on. It's not just technical items.
It's all about making money. Twitter is sitting back absolutely loving every Trump tweet, while individually at least some
or many of the people there hate the actual tweets themselves or at least think the POTUS should be communicating in a better
manner and put this ad hoc approach aside. I don't know of too many that think he's doing good things for the country or world
or even his self image and reputation with it and should continue. But for Twitter it promotes their product and service and stock
and pay check and bonus and livelihood. So the greed wins out.
As for education, it's not easy to get an engineering or comp sci degree. But while you are getting hammered in classes
that are far more complex than most other things taught on the campus, you do indeed have to take a variety of other non-technical
electives outside of your technical major to complete the overall curriculum. But there's only so much you can do, only so
much time and interest. You can't necessarily expect each and everyone to be incredibly well rounded without at least sacrificing
their ability to focus and specialize in their strength and interest. Pretty much every doctor I've met is aloof to some degree.
Accountants have trouble thinking outside the strict confines of the accounting box. I know plenty of lawyers who aren't great
with technology or computers. And few people in those professions that are also incredibly versed in the things the author mentions.
Few have time to be once life and family kicks in.
This likely has been pointed out already, but the American University system requires all students to take a core of humanities
classes regardless of major. SO they actually have been exposed to, most likely, a fair number of Western Civ, History, and Literature
courses. Their deficiency I think lays more in the utopian roots of the internet and technology development of the 1990s. They
have been strangely naive and ruthless at the same time, and its changing human interactions and society sometimes for the better
and sometimes for the worse.
He said he was "half educated" not because he finished only half of his comp sci degree (or even psychology) but because he wasn't
educated in other subjects that may have given him insight into human behavior and sociology. There may be some truth to that
but it seems kind of a stretch since pretty much most people are as he describes; he just seems to be picking on Zuckerberg since
he developed something with such huge influence and is now on the hot seat for being at least naive if not deliberately looking
the other way while his platform was used in ways he probably didn't envision or want but made them a ton of money. Most people
aren't really that educated or versed in the things the author mentions, and that includes many people outside of the tech industry
who could never accomplish what Zuckerberg or others have accomplished.
A 4-year engineering degree already takes 5 years to complete (at least for a dim bulb like myself). We already have to take a
bunch of non-technical social science, history, and English "core" classes.
Way to miss the point. Zuckerberg is poorly educated in understanding human behavior. I could've told these tech yokels exactly
what was becoming of their practices.
It's no coincidence that the people I know who eschew things like Twitter and Facebook are the techy people who can remember
the internet in the good ol' days when the maxim was "don't tell anyone anything about anything".
God, I remember that feeling. Still on a modem and proudly watching people excitedly get into the Internet. And then I watched
on in utter horror as they give away their real names. I didn't understand why people didn't understand. You can discard a mask
- you can't discard your face!
And you fail to realize that your existence is not, never has and never will be an island that removes you from the rest of humanity.
It is irrelevant to the rest of us if you volunteer to be ignorant of the rest of us, and yet you think that only if everyone
else was like you the problem would be solved.
Sorry but, our existence is inherently governed by the fact that we are social animals and part of an Earth based biosphere
and politically that requires we show more than smug diffidence. I realise that religions have spent the last 2000 years or so
trying to separate us from each other and nature, by pretending we have individual souls far more important than our collective
being, but that's not an excuse either.
"While seemingly democratic at a superficial level, a system in which the lack of structure means that all voices carry
equal weight, and yet popularity, not experience or intelligence, actually drives influence, is clearly in need of more refinement
and thought than it was first given"
Erm. The inevitable effect of connection-seeking in a low friction environment is called The Singularity and people have
been warning about it for at least the last couple of decades now.
Congratulations. You've recognized the Problem. Now, if you really want to look smart, explain why nobody involved wants to
implement the Solution...
I have a feeling your poor friends get the Big picture while you dont. Trumps get elected while you are offline. Brexit happens
while you are offline cause Cambridge Analytica and Farage .. well they work hard at protecting certain interests. And so on..
is about information wars and power. And their consequences on democracy. And you might not be immediately affected If you are
white male and from an OK bakground. If you are privileged and well off maybe even your children will make it in the offline bubble.
But what about the rest?
The UK history on democracy isn't exactly a roll call of enlightened thinking either. The only gains were made by often violent
demonstrations by The Chartists and Suffragettes. But at least the UK never banned black people from voting.
You are not a nice person. Thinking that people you imagine aren't as intelligent or don't see the world the way you see it deserve
dieing from poverty or opioid overdoses is quite unpleasant.
Sure, pick on the engineers. They make more money than you do. But if your half-courage took a leap forward, you'd target the
quarter-educated people who are driving this because they control the spending. But then, they're also the people you're asking
for a job aren't they?
Wow, if there ever was an example of why Trump won, the utter and complete self righteousness of the American liberal, this
post is it. Congratulations.
You never had a "democracy" ... or if you had one, it was in the very dim past and limited to propertied men ... in recent
times, you've had a two-party oligarchy managed by military-tech corporations. Oh, those good old days of limited choice and Vietnam,
how can we ever go back to those, amirite?
Gosh, I guess they were not joking when they talked about the "global village" ... and anyone knows a village is full of gossip
and half-truths.
I feel like almost every other day i need to point out to my hyperventilating Russia-fearing friends that you all do realize
that all of this online-ness is voluntary, right? That a person can have a complete and real existence with no Facebook profile,
not Tweet, none of that? I'm one such person, and I work in tech.
Are media companies prevented by regulation from reporting "fake news". In any supermarket you'll spot newspapers with headlines
to the effect that "My Mother-in-Law is a Space Alien". Now, while I'd guess that is true some of the time, I have a hard time
believing that there are really that many space aliens around harassing their earthling inlaws. I'm not aware that that reporting
is regulated. Are you saying it is?
The vow claimed by Brin and other Google founders, "Do No Evil," should have been a warning. In a New Yorker piece on tech's influence
on the election last summer, a Facebook employee was quoted as saying, "We joke about who we should give the election to." It
has recently come out that as Apple, the most traitorous of all the giant tech corporations that are a product of the American
educational system (before it was strangled by Republicans like Trump and Betsy DeVos), traitorous because they pay no corporate
taxes in the U.S., had an opportunity to choose between making phones and PDAs addictive pleasure machines or responsible news
devices. They chose addictive pleasures, because it's obviously more profitable, like McDonald's supersizing its French fries
and sugary drinks.
They've created a generation of Americans who will swallow anything that's fed to them ("It must be true. I read it on the
Internet."). These are the people who love Trump, who don't understand or care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and
would probably vote against them in a referendum (which some Republicans have promoted as a new Constitutional Convention). Their
minds have become morbidly obese, filled with Angry Birds and empty Twitter posts that leave them unable to comprehend ideas that
take more than 140 characters to express.
Such people deserve their fate (poverty, death by opioids), but it's tragic and evil that they are wrecking the planet with
climate change denial (which, of course, justifies unregulated pollution), science denial (in which Evangelical Christians commit
the child abuse of denying evolution and trying to prohibit its teaching.Such Fake Christians also reject most of Jesus' liberal
teachings.)
Here in the SF Bay Area it's hard to avoid knowing some of these techies. They aren't all clueless about social interaction,
arrogant, selfish, and contemptuous of other people--only 90% of them. The remainder scratch their heads, smile, cash their paychecks
and stock options, and retire to multimillion dollar ranches to write cookbooks and make wine.
So now we have a population of tech geeks who don't know much but think they know everything, who spout "Do No Evil," while
doing the ultimate evil--making a world unsafe for democracy but a pleasure palace for the rich, using a technology that is a
uniquely American product of an educational system that was once a shining example and is now in shambles to destroy the dream
of democracy that America used to champion, but does no longer.
It makes the coming Chinese domination of the world seem like cosmic justice, doesn't it?
More degrees in the humanities is no antidote to or remedy for amoral/harmful tech and those who create and market it. Nor is
this a problem of white privilege and lack of inclusiveness -- minorities run after tech goodies with the same glee as everyone
else.
Schools and just about everyone are promoting STEM degrees as the way to a good job and prosperity, and I don't foresee
anybody creating jobs for philosophers to warn us against new tech developments.
This is one of those dangers that people don't foresee. They only see it when it's happened. Now it has; depending on how bad
the fallout, the pushback and regulation will follow. Not sure if it will be sufficient, though. Especially under an Administration
with little respect for facts or truth while it pursues the maximum dollar gain from the government before skedaddling.
If you've every hung out in Silicon Valley with techies you'd know that mild sociopathy is indeed likely part of the problem.
But the argument that it's because their education lacked learning about history or society is a bit silly when you consider
the bulk of the population has probably not studied such disciplines beyond high school and some of the greatest engineers who
invented or built some of the most important creations in history lacked a degree in the humanities.
What differentiates past engineering eras from present is political and societal will to ensure inventions are used for the
good of humanity. In short, a lack of regulation in the face of rampant neo-liberal capitalism that has enthralled the politicians
who should be looking out for the public, not themselves and their cronies.
Facebook et al should long ago have been classified as media companies and regulated as such. Start hitting Zuckerburg with
billions in fines and/or the threat of regulating him out of business and you'd very quickly see those much vaunted algorithms
and engineering prowess spring into action to tackle the fake news and propaganda epidemic.
Ahh, yeah Aruler...thanks for that....I think....!
If you read this article and his former article on the subject(a big if), then you would be able to enlighten us on exactly
what Laughton means by such comments as below. I actually completed my degree and so am 'fully educated but still struggle with
the logic:-
"the hero's education rendered him incapable of understanding the world into which he was born. For although he was supposed
to be majoring in psychology at Harvard, the young Zuckerberg mostly took computer science classes until he started Facebook
and dropped out
Your post referenced economics, not social issues.
It seems that once the State expands to the size it is now (~43% of GDP is directly spent by government) then virtually everything
becomes political: economics, politics, social.
(ps if i've got this horribly wrong and libertarianism as a word has just been coopted to mean 'minarchist' i apologise)
I suppose it depends on how you define "libertarian". I, and most of the theorists I read, see it as a quite broad label which
stretches from anarchism at one (extreme) end, to small-state minarchism at the other.
And yes, I am "right-wing" in terms of economics (though fascism, typically described as a "far-right" movement, is actually
quite far-left in terms of economics, which is why I try to avoid debating these matters in terms of left/right. But when people
self-describe that way, one doesn't have much choice).
So, yes, I prefer no (or minimal) State involvement in areas of the economy that it is possible to have private suppliers compete
against each other. So that includes healthcare (but not all healthcare; the time-critical nature of A&E services means
they are not amenable to real competition), education, and various other things most people are used to having provided by their
governments.
But the "natural monopolies" (things like roads/railways/pipelines/sewers) can't really be provided by competing suppliers,
so it's reasonable that they are owned (but not necessarily run) by the State. So taxes need to be raised to pay for those things.
Unlike most minarchists, though, I see outright, allodial land ownership as unjustifiable (it's a capital good that no one
created, and thus no-one can claim rightful ownership). So in that regard also I'm quite left-wing.
Capitalists will do what capitalists do. So ignoring social consequences in the pursuit of money is baked-in. Doesn't matter
what your education is. In fact, class has more to do with their blindness than the lack of a liberal arts education.
yeah, but if you read this article (big if) he's calling him 'half-educated' because he has a shoddy background in social systems
that has left him ignorant of a vast body of historical knowledge and political theory, not because he didn't finish his degree.
maybe you should try reading the article and/or writing comments relevant to it...
If it were the Iate 15th century there would be a similar article decrying the printing press and if the 19th, the postage stamp.
Newspapers have been targeting a partisan readership long before social media came along and all controlled & managed by humanities
graduates. Conrad Black & Boris Johnson hardly exemplars of a solid grounding in humanities leading to informed decision making
overcoming self interest.
this half-baked education has left him bewildered and rudderless
He is now claiming that Zuckerberg is 'half-educated'. Just because he did not complete his degree?! This surely does not make
him half-educated? Does that mean that those who do not have a degree are not educated? This smells a little of scholastic snobbery
from our former Cambridge University graduate and Vice President !
What's so appalling is that I don't even think they have the slightest inkling that what you've just posted is the absolute reality
of these types.
They are so convinced they're right, and that everything they think must prevail, that they simply ignore democracy and anything
else that shows that they're actually completely wrong.
You mean you're not economically right wing? Minimal taxes, less state intervention in the economy (including health), etc? Your
post referenced economics, not social issues. Socially we agree on a lot, probably nearly everything to be honest - I'm all for
legalising based on harm caused by drugs, less military, anti snooper's charter/surveillance, etc, but I like taxes and I like
the NHS, and that is where I think you're right wing and I am left! (ps if i've got this horribly wrong and libertarianism as
a word has just been coopted to mean 'minarchist' i apologise)
....Yes, to a certain extent that can happen via reading, but the biggest check on privilege and self-satisfaction is actually
engaging with actual other people who don't share that privilege. And that just isn't happening at Stanford and Harvard....
As someone who grew up both first-world-poor and a nerd i cannot expres in words how much i hate that 'the elite' keeps insisting
that *the truth* about life and love and everything can only be found in a mixture of greec classics and trips to india. You are
only 'enlightened' if you have the time and money to read those books and make those trips and most importantly: if you come home
from all that with the right opinions about detesting money, detesting xenophobia, etc.
they pat themselves on the back any time they listen to what they insist is 'an outsider' but is just someone of a different gender/color
parroting back their own believes.
It ties in with what many of the fake-news-complainers are reluctant to discuss: there is an ocean of sociological/economic
'facts' that exist somewhere between 'easily-provable lie' and 'this may be a lie to the elite, but it is a true fact for the
unwashed masses'. and in tandem with that: the uneasy questions about censorship that come with *any* attempt at regulating the
press.
This is too simple. The development of critical thought is the key thing and it isn't monopolized by any discipline. People
without any qualifications and without much education can - and do - exercise critical ability. The problem is a cultural one.
Consumerism and the pretend world in which people 'think' they can be what they want and live in make believe soaps is the problem.
"If you have an issue with tech giants messing around with your personal data, don't give them your personal data."
They'll take your personal data, regardless. Because they make money from selling it.
"A "liberal arts" education is now a selling point in some schools." Presumably schools from families so wealthy, the children
will never have to worry about competing with 6 billion other people for a job someday.
The author concerns are naive and misplaced (although he probably advocated the interests of the group to which he belongs).
MBA, Master of Business Administration gradates are indoctrinated neoliberals. This is about neoliberalism, not about the structure
of the university education and the amount of social coursers required to get an STEM degree.
Notable quotes:
"... First off, full disclosure: I'm in tech, so I'm an insider. I also absolutely agree that tech has a huge, huge problem with understanding the consequences of our actions. But it's a little bit naïve to act as though taking another year or two of humanities classes would magically prevent tech leaders from making antisocial products. ..."
"... Trump is the quintessential Exceptional American, weaponized. The Trump Organization constructed more than 180 skyscrapers and major properties worldwide within every cesspool of political, military, religious, organized crime, and civil corruption. Trump is the toughest SOB on the planet - and the most experienced. And he's ours. I stand with Trump. ..."
"... "It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted ideological and political messages to voters." That was supposed to be reserved for exclusive use of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The writer clearly does not know much about the US higher education system where engineers and scientists cannot get away without taking humanities courses, unlike the UK. ..."
Power and influence are not just a battle between STEM and Humanities, though. You've missed the MBA, Master of Business Admistration.
They are the ones who control everything now.
It may have been the case some decades ago, but now it is Managerialism, in the guise of a whole ideology that has sprung from
MBA's, that rules over both the STEM and Humanities workers.
From mid- and large- private companies, to the public sector, they all speak the same language and it is the language of the
MBA. Corporate visions of embracing customer focused cost control while empowering our core mission values.
Time for an article on Managerialism, as it is the air we breathe these days.
Your username rather contradicts the assertions you make about your political orientation..
Well let's have a look at some typical libertarian policies. Recreational drugs decriminalised. The dismantling of the surveillance
State. Stop covering for Israel's crimes in the UN. A much-reduced military that was for purely defensive purposes. How're they
"right-wing", exactly?
My recent example is saying "It's like Quixote tiltiing at windmills" only to find the others, 6 or 7 people all with Firsts in
STEM had no idea what I was on about. Also saying "It's far too Heath-Robinson" had the same effect.
It does dismay me how clever many of my colleagues are, but how painfully narrow their knowledge is. They study their subject
(and I suspect most of that is just for career development i.e. love of money rather than knowledge) but little else.
Our culture has a bad attitude to wisdom in general. Each generation is taught to disregard the old timers, what can they possibly
know about anything?
I guess it's all how the plutocracy like it. Their media can tell us that the Crusades were a defensive war and nobody knows
enough to disagree. They can continually role out nonsense about the "good guys and the evil guys" to explain world problems and
again, nobody knows anything other than that.
Democracy is a political philosophy. Socialism is an economic theory.
Socialism is not an "economic" theory. Socialism (and I use the term in its original, Marxist sense: State ownership & control
of the means of production, distribution, and exchange) has absolutely no economic theory behind it. Nowhere did Marx tell his
followers how to run their economies; after they'd won, the Bolsheviks and Maoists were on their own. No wonder millions starved.
It's impossible to make rational economic calculations in a socialist commonwealth because there is no price signal mechanism.
Hence communist countries' famous gluts and shortages.
At its height, despite the fact its economy was much simpler than any here in the West's, economists of the USSR were setting
the prices of more than 5 million items, and even they admitted it would have been impossible without knowing (and copying) the
prices that arose in our (relatively) free-market economies.
In fact, they joked that once "the revolution" was complete and communism had taken over the world, they'd be required to have
some small country remain free-market capitalist so they could have some clue about what prices should be.
And I have no idea of who concocted the "famous quote".
Lulz. You walked into that one: Alexis de Tocqueville
I can't up-vote this enough. MIT, for example, requires eight semesters of humanities for all undergraduates, regardless of major.
If you talk to the faculty in the humanities dept, they'll tell you how much they enjoy teaching there, because they get really
intelligent students who can think rigorously. (And also because they're almost all tenured professors -- not underpaid "adjuncts".)
Yes, there are a certain percentage of students who meet the stereotype of being socially awkward and not very interested in
thinking about things outside of their science and technology focus, but they're not the majority and are more than balanced by
the bulk of the student body who could hold their own in any liberal arts program in the world.
We live in a plutocracy and we get the tech that the plutocrats want us to have. Drives on diversity aren't working because
those non-white-upper-middle-class-males who get the roles, are those who behave exactly the same as the white-upper-middle-class
elite. So the changes are literally skin deep.
Sadly, most of the women I've encountered at the top of the corporate tree have either been there through nepotism (e.g. MD's
daughter or mistress) or been promoted way beyond their level of competence and have compensated for that with drink, drugs or
appalling bullying.
The educated, savvy women all seem to baled out long before they reach that level!
Harvard required class of 1964 freshmen to read the published version "The Two Cultures" the summer before they matriculated.
The general knowledge of college friends who were scientists and mathematicians (and went on to become university professors)
was at least equal to other friends specializing in social sciences and humanities, because suburban American high schools in
wealthy communities provide a good general education up to age 18, not 16 as in British public, comprehensive and grammar schools,
and because American university courses require a large fraction of a student's course work lie outside their department of specialization.
Snow wrote about the British system. He deplored the willful scientific ignorance of many members of the British Civil Service
of this acquaintance. His comments were not intended for or relevant to the American experience. A bright American student, as
these computer tech executives' work histories show they must have been, will have gained familiarity with both "cultures" by
the time they started their college courses. Their college experiences will have built upon this familiarity.
In my opinion It is inappropriate to blame the failure to regulate internet speech properly upon the education of American
tech leaders. Corbyn and whoever replaces Trump will remedy theunderlying issues because they know unregulated capitalism cannot
be trusted to act responsibly.
But often the customers don't know exactly what they want and constantly want to make changes.
True. "It's just what we asked for, but it's not what we want!", viz. Nimrod. And sometimes a supplier provides a system that
they say is perfect for the task required, yet once it's installed it clearly is nothing of the sort. The customer's ex-MD retires
to the sun, counting his backhander and giggling hysterically. I've encountered that more than once during my career, too.
So what about those teaching and learning 'digital humanities', is this subject then a contradiction in terms? Surly these divides
are redundant as subjects become multi disciplinary in our digital age, each will influence the other in new and interesting ways.
There is no uninventing available to us here only the effort in rebalancing in how we value what it is to be human.
First off, full disclosure: I'm in tech, so I'm an insider. I also absolutely agree that tech has a huge, huge problem
with understanding the consequences of our actions. But it's a little bit naïve to act as though taking another year or two of
humanities classes would magically prevent tech leaders from making antisocial products.
For one thing, more people in tech have humanities backgrounds than you might think (I do--I'm a software developer and educator
with a BA from Stanford and am finishing an MSEE, and I have a fair number of colleagues with similarly mixed educational backgrounds).
For another, Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook when he was was what, 20? It's foolish to act like you can turn a 20-year-old, *any*
20-year-old, into a wise and thoughtful human who can understand all the consequences of their actions by sticking them in a classroom
for another year or two. I certainly was a moron when I was 20. Shockingly, I was also a moron when I was 22. College kids just
still have a lot of growing up to do.
Don't get me wrong, I work a lot with high schoolers and university students, and I'm a very big proponent of education. But
the thing that makes the biggest difference in knocking adolescent heads is exposing kids to people that aren't like them. Yes,
to a certain extent that can happen via reading, but the biggest check on privilege and self-satisfaction is actually engaging
with actual other people who don't share that privilege. And that just isn't happening at Stanford and Harvard.
I'm white and the child of college-educated parents; at Stanford I still felt out of place, weird, and poor. I was surrounded
by people who went to skiing in Switzerland at Christmas and had boats; it wasn't a world I was familiar with or understood. That
effect is only magnified for kids of color or from more marginalized backgrounds, sprinkled lightly across classrooms that are
overwhelmingly white and privileged. The idea that a white, middle-class kid -- even a gay female kid like me -- would be right
near the bottom of the privilege scale I think tells you just about everything about that university culture that you need to
know.
What's happening in tech is part of the sickness of our entire social and economic system; it's a toxic mixture of privilege
perpetuating privilege, in terms of race and class and gender and money and access. Tech doesn't create antisocial products by
itself. Having a lot of rich white kids sitting around discussing Plato in a classroom might make them more well-rounded on paper,
but if you then still funnel them then into a money sea dominated by bro culture and VCs, with no necessity or encouragement to
engage with people who live outside that bubble, you're still going to get people who are shocked, shocked!! to learn that their
products have negative consequences for the lives of the people on the other side of the screen. Lots of *workers* in tech do
partially bridge that gap, in one way or another. But the people at the top, making the decisions, are selected overwhelmingly
by being white dudes who fit the "poorly socialized iconoclast" mold that VCs understand and then massively isolated by the enormous
*heaps of cash* that investors have thrown at them to make something the investors think will get them the best return on their
investment. *No part* of that is good for society writ large, beginning to end, in very large part because investors have no reason
to care what happens to anyone else.
Here's an example! At this stage, anyone in tech who doesn't think that they're working on making every worker in the world,
*including themselves*, obsolete, is deluding themselves. But most of us *do* know that and keep showing up for work, because
we don't know any other way of paying our bills. We know that social and political action is needed, a lot of us are agitating
for precisely that, but we can't do it on our own, and we have a pretty realistic idea about what kind of future lies for us and
our families if we just decide to walk away from the industry. I'm a little too old to really be a millennial, but this is the
rock and the hard place, for people even 3 years younger than I am, who graduated from college just in time for the crash: if
you're in tech, you're keeping your head above water, barely. If you're not, you're working constantly with no benefits or security,
just so you can live with your parents and form a punchline about avocados.
If you want to check tech, you need *political will.* You have to check the money, because it's never going to check itself.
And if you want to make Silicon Valley actually become capable of making the utopian tech it likes to believe it can produce,
it also wouldn't hurt to check the *overwhelming* bias in tech hiring and in elite education towards people who are white, privileged,
and just like everybody else who's already there.
I once met a man in a Texas prison who was incarcerated for programming a banks software to divert small fractions of (rounded
off) pennies to his personal account. Those added up fast enough to get noticed.
Trump is the quintessential Exceptional American, weaponized. The Trump Organization constructed more than 180 skyscrapers
and major properties worldwide within every cesspool of political, military, religious, organized crime, and civil corruption.
Trump is the toughest SOB on the planet - and the most experienced. And he's ours. I stand with Trump.
Democracy is a political philosophy. Socialism is an economic theory. The two are not mutually exclusive. And I have no idea of
who concocted the "famous quote".
When you refer to someone as "Machiavellian" does an engineer understand? In the US there used to be a required college course
entitled "The History of Western Civilization". It formed a common bond somewhat like serving in the military.
"a liberal arts major familiar with works like Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty,
or even the work of ancient Greek historians, might have been able to recognise much sooner the potential for the 'tyranny
of the majority' or other disconcerting sociological phenomena that are embedded into the very nature of today's social media
platforms..."
Such a person would most have likely held their nose and voted for Trump, knowing the appalling damage Hillary had done during
her tenure in the State department.
The usual Graun assumption that it's only ignorance or selfishness that makes people eschew Leftists and their policies.
Sorry. Progressives are actually more ignorant about politics, economics and history, in my experience. I'm not "right-wing"
myself but far more of my right-leaning friends are likely to know who de Tocqueville was and what he wrote than my Lefty friends.
And most of them will know this rather famous quote:
"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each
man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.
But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
The old "two cultures debate", which in my student days was conducted between FR Leavis and CP Snow, has not advanced very
far. There is certainly something in it, but I suspect that the intellectuals of the sixteenth century, most of whom could be
found in monasteries, complained that Gutenberg would never have pressed ahead so carelessly with printing using moveable type
if he had had a proper grounding in Rhetoric and in Theology, instead of blacksmithing and goldsmithing...
After all... we went from Gutenberg printing in Strasbourg in 1445 to Martin Luther printing his 95 Theses in 1522...
I think we are seeing a similar democratisation of information today.
We can no more put the genie back in the bottle than could Sir Thomas More. If Zuckerberg, Page and Brin had not invented their
money machines, someone else might have done so.
The only political leader who is actively trying to control the genie is Xi Jinping, and he may not be entirely successful
in keeping up the Great Firewall of China.
I think we have to ride the wave, and keep in mind that political power itself is a matter of technology, as I am sure Marshal
McLuhan would point out.
The Great Dictators of the last century were creatures of the radio and the cinema, which allowed them a one sided conversation
with every household and made them bestride the silver screen.
Television replaced radio and cinema and with its more domestic scale it cut the monsters down to size and promoted democracy.
The social media have galvanised authoritarianism at the moment, but the wheels will continue to turn..
New Model: People who disagree with me are stupid.
Oh, and a column in The Guardian defending Mill's On Liberty ? Priceless.
By the way, the entire premise of the column is flawed. Harvard, like all US colleges, has requirements that students take
classes outside their major, including humanities. My
tech prowess allowed
to me find that out. :)
Translation/TL;DR version:
> Trump won despite the amount of shameless fear-mongering and short-selling we in the MSM did for Hillary and Dems.
> Tech companies did not do their part in preventing Trump victory by actively censoring everyone WE disagree with.
> We need OUR (SJW/Humanities/Marxist/LiberalArts) people to MANAGE/WATCHOVER these tech guys.
> Guys like Zucker/Brin/Page are not essentially evil, they are just not educate ENOUGH in SJW/Marxist agenda.
> Guys like Thiel are pure evil.
> WE KNOW BEST, hence, we must be allowed to control and manipulate what people think and how they act.
So what else could explain the astonishing naivety of the tech crowd? My hunch is it has something to do with their educational
backgrounds. Take the Google co-founders. Sergey Brin studied mathematics and computer science. His partner, Larry Page, studied
engineering and computer science. Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard, where he was studying psychology and computer science,
but seems to have been more interested in the latter.
Science should left in the hands of the political elite, who know what's best for the people.
People need not be good at math to know when a politician is lying. By the humanities, they know a politician is lying because
their lips are moving. lol
Said this before in a reply: Isn't there some responsibility on the part of the Humanities to give a more accurate portrayal of
history and society? For example, shouldn't we all be well aware that the success of these tech giants is built on state-funded
innovation? Shouldn't we all be less blind to how markets work? A stronger left might provide a clearer vision of how power works,
but we have been silencing that hard left for years.
Agree. But how about the fact that many educated people do not know that much of the technology and innovation behind this wealth
was state-funded and not "sexy" Isn't it the job of the liberal arts - history, sociology, government classes to address the role
of the state in innovation? We are blinded by a worshipful attitude toward the market. Without a strong left it seems we have
lost sight of reality. Isn't this partially the fault of Humanities departments?
Normally I don't single out greedy business leaders to take the blame for society's woes. It is the fault of our political leaders
for allowing them to damage society in their chase for the almighty dollar (or billions of them)...Libertarians, conservatives
and centrist Dems to be exact.
But in this case I think the criticism is spot on since these tech nerds keep on claiming their products will make the country
and world a better place. Time to kill the meme that capitalists and business people are bested suited morally to lead the world
in the 21st Century.
"It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted
ideological and political messages to voters." That was supposed to be reserved for exclusive use of the Democratic Party.
One of the changes (still happening) in literature, psychology, sociology, and philosophy departments is a focus on privilege,
"the other", subjugation, the power of elites . . . So studying the humanities may involve a critique - at least a consciousness
- of one's privilege. Not familiar with Snow but there is plenty of lit crit and theory to dismantle or at least challenge the
canon.
I guess the problem being referred to in this article that there are negative implications for all of us because many people's
opinions are shaped by what they read on social media. What all of us read is biased in ways that it is difficult to trace the
source of that bias. In "the good old days" at least most people tended to know the biases of the newspapers and TV news that
you consumed, but now you can be biased by what your friends share with you on social media, or what google choses to show you
in search results but there is no way of knowing the source of those biases. The problem therefore goes far beyond the risks of
sharing personal data.
Yes, I agree and I wasn't disparaging the STEM subjects at all or equating them in some way with capitalist interests. Both can
have that criticism applied to them - for instance, historians can definitely twist facts and more or less propagandise events.
Both are necessary, but I was thinking that both need to have at least a grasp of the influence and range of the other and be
better educated to do that.
Ditto bankers, doctors, lawyers and journalists.... The world (and particularly the US) is full of specialists. The author's assertions
are naive and half-educated.
Nonsense! You were just filling your word count with provocative poo.
Every technology has a good side and a bad one - including and especially the medical arts. Consider the recent news regarding
successful head transplants and face transplants; where will that takes us when humanitarian uses fail to pay the bills???
One book does not make the man. The point is many private and public schools focus on STEM to the detriment of humanities. A "liberal
arts" education is now a selling point in some schools.
Totally understand your point. As a non-tech individual who has been hostile to this massive organization of information and its
consequent requirements to alter human thought and social patterns to use systems, it is certainly expected that designers would
demand compliance from all parties for their own purposes. Even in the SF Chronicle, i often read quips about programmers disguising
coding for their own private use. In SF some loose canon but brilliant guy was asked to redesign the city's computer systems.
He had total mental breakdown and was jailed for some sort of bizarre infraction that had something to do with unauthorized personal
use. I can't quite remember details. The Chron offered to the public that the City may never know what this guy designed into
the systems. Bottom line was the city employees were totally delighted about their new programs and the programmer wouldn't talk.
If i remember correctly he was this eccentric, well liked gay guy.
Horseshit! I read De Toqueville in high school. There are required humanities courses at good universities. And anyone can read
a book on one's own time.
I agree with your overall assessment of the tech owners. However, blaming their academic discipline is short sighted. I suggest
you get to know some math and computer science majors. Many are well versed in the humanities. Not everyone needs a degree in
liberal arts to understand the human race.
Perhaps you are referring to the culture of technology that bred a lack of insight into human behavior.
There are also people with degrees in the liberal arts who go into technological fields. I agree with your views on the naïveté
of the tech leaders, but blaming a college degree strikes me as looking for a parallel that doesn't exist.
The writer clearly does not know much about the US higher education system where engineers and scientists cannot get away
without taking humanities courses, unlike the UK.
I would say that a deep study of the humanities can impart the kind of pessimism about human nature that animated Madison, Jefferson
and the other Framers of the Constitution. Their pessimism, unlike the unrestrained optimism of their counterparts in France,
is what enabled this country to be one of the few to survive a revolution without descending into mass murder and tyranny. But
given their fundamental pessimism, the founders of this country would probably be surprised that the governmental structure they
designed had endured this long.
Many of today's 'tech-elite' are sons of rich, establishment types who only have one interest: making more money. By the time
reports leek this appear, they already have a private island and a few billion in the bank. If you have an issue with tech giants
messing around with your personal data, don't give them your personal data.
I would like to congratulate the vast majority of the people posting here on producing possibly the most thoughtful and considered
set of comments I have read on a Guardian Article.
I will give the Article credit for stimulating the debate but I do think the discussion BTL has been far more interesting than
the original.
Alison I agree, but because the number of arts and sciences students is declining, arts and sciences faculty try to isolate integrated
studies (often called general studies or, at my university, the core curriculum) from professional studies. They do this to try
to save their jobs so it's understandable. The end results are sporadic, half-hearted attempts at integration that don't exactly
foster aha moments. Rather they cultivate thinking such as we see in this article.
The original backers of the "wired" world (such as Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly who founded Wired, but one could list dozens
of tech legends) were utopian thinkers who were very well versed in history and philosophy. Unfortunately but probably inevitably,
the whole thing was corrupted by corporations as it became part of mainstream consumer society.
"... For the architect of the euro, taking macroeconomics away from elected politicians and forcing
deregulation were part of the plan ..."
"... The idea that the euro has "failed" is dangerously naive. The euro is doing exactly what its
progenitor – and the wealthy 1%-ers who adopted it – predicted and planned for it to do. ..."
Thanks to New Deal democrat, who made me curious about yesterday's "comment section in re Summers'
piece." Then thanks to Ron Waller for his comment which closed with: (Good read: "Robert Mundell,
evil genius of the euro".)
For the architect of the euro, taking macroeconomics away from elected politicians and forcing
deregulation were part of the plan
The idea that the euro has "failed" is dangerously naive. The euro is doing exactly what its
progenitor – and the wealthy 1%-ers who adopted it – predicted and planned for it to do.
That progenitor is former University of Chicago economist Robert Mundell. The architect of "supply-side
economics" is now a professor at Columbia University, but I knew him through his connection to my
Chicago professor, Milton Friedman, back before Mundell's research on currencies and exchange rates
had produced the blueprint for European monetary union and a common European currency.
Mundell, then, was more concerned with his bathroom arrangements. Professor Mundell, who has both
a Nobel Prize and an ancient villa in Tuscany, told me, incensed:
"They won't even let me have a toilet. They've got rules that tell me I can't have a toilet in
this room! Can you imagine?"
As it happens, I can't. But I don't have an Italian villa, so I can't imagine the frustrations
of bylaws governing commode placement.
But Mundell, a can-do Canadian-American, intended to do something about it: come up with a
weapon that would blow away government rules and labor regulations. (He really hated the union plumbers
who charged a bundle to move his throne.)
"It's very hard to fire workers in Europe," he complained. His answer: the euro.
The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's
control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary
and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession.
"It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said. "[And] without fiscal
policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business."
He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away
by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace – or the plumbing.
As another Nobelist, Paul Krugman, notes, the creation of the eurozone violated the basic economic
rule known as "optimum currency area". This was a rule devised by Bob Mundell.
That doesn't bother Mundell. For him, the euro wasn't about turning Europe into a powerful, unified
economic unit. It was about Reagan and Thatcher.
"Ronald Reagan would not have been elected president without Mundell's influence," once wrote
Jude Wanniski in the Wall Street Journal. The supply-side economics pioneered by Mundell became the
theoretical template for Reaganomics – or as George Bush the Elder called it, "voodoo economics":
the magical belief in free-market nostrums that also inspired the policies of Mrs Thatcher.
Mundell explained to me that, in fact, the euro is of a piece with Reaganomics:
"Monetary discipline forces fiscal discipline on the politicians as well."
And when crises arise, economically disarmed nations have little to do but wipe away government
regulations wholesale, privatize state industries en masse, slash taxes and send the European welfare
state down the drain.
Thus, we see that (unelected) Prime Minister Mario Monti is demanding labor law "reform" in Italy
to make it easier for employers like Mundell to fire those Tuscan plumbers. Mario Draghi, the (unelected)
head of the European Central Bank, is calling for "structural reforms" – a euphemism for worker-crushing
schemes. They cite the nebulous theory that this "internal devaluation" of each nation will make
them all more competitive.
Monti and Draghi cannot credibly explain how, if every country in the Continent cheapens its workforce,
any can gain a competitive advantage.
But they don't have to explain their policies; they just have to let the markets go to work on each
nation's bonds. Hence, currency union is class war by other means.
The crisis in Europe and the flames of Greece have produced the warming glow of what the supply-siders'
philosopher-king Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction". Schumpeter acolyte and free-market
apologist Thomas Friedman flew to Athens to visit the "impromptu shrine" of the burnt-out bank where
three people died after it was fire-bombed by anarchist protesters, and used the occasion to deliver
a homily on globalization and Greek "irresponsibility".
The flames, the mass unemployment, the fire-sale of national assets, would bring about what Friedman
called a "regeneration" of Greece and, ultimately, the entire eurozone. So that Mundell and those
others with villas can put their toilets wherever they damn well want to.
Far from failing, the euro, which was Mundell's baby, has succeeded probably beyond its progenitor's
wildest dreams.
[Needless to say, I am not a fan of Robert Mundell's.]
"It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said. "[And] without fiscal policy,
the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business."
"..It's quite reasonable to suppose that, thanks to dependence on imported inputs and/or demand
for imported consumption goods, output can't rise without higher imports. And a country may well
run out of foreign exchange before it runs out of domestic savings, finance or productive capacity.
This is the idea behind multiple gap models in development economics, or balance of payments constrained
growth. It also seems like the direction orthodoxy is heading in the eurozone, where competitiveness
is bidding to replace inflation as the overriding concern of macro policy."
"I wonder how this fits with the national savings rate discussion of Miles Kimball and Brad Setser."
[Don't know and it sounds like way too much work for me to try to figure out. Savings rate
is not a problem for us and it is difficult to see how Greece could realistically increase theirs
sufficient to change anything without some other intervention being made first to decrease unemployment
and increase output.]
"... The word ["neoliberalism"] has become a rhetorical weapon, but it properly names the reigning ideology of our era – one that venerates the logic of the market and strips away the things that make us human. ..."
"... Last summer, researchers at the International Monetary Fund settled a long and bitter debate over "neoliberalism": they admitted it exists. Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not known for its incaution, published a paper questioning the benefits of neoliberalism ..."
"... The paper gently called out a "neoliberal agenda" for pushing deregulation on economies around the world, for forcing open national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity or privatisation. The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since 1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality. ..."
"... In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, it was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left's traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had enabled a sickening rise in inequality. ..."
"... Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market ..."
"... Of course the goal was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes and deregulate. But "neoliberalism" indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list. It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals. ..."
"... In short, "neoliberalism" is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that, quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate organising principle for human activity. ..."
"... No sooner had neoliberalism been certified as real, and no sooner had it made clear the universal hypocrisy of the market, than the populists and authoritarians came to power ..."
"... Against the forces of global integration, national identity is being reasserted, and in the crudest possible terms. What could the militant parochialism of Brexit Britain and Trumpist America have to do with neoliberal rationality? ..."
"... It isn't only that the free market produces a tiny cadre of winners and an enormous army of losers – and the losers, looking for revenge, have turned to Brexit and Trump. There was, from the beginning, an inevitable relationship between the utopian ideal of the free market and the dystopian present in which we find ourselves; ..."
"... That Hayek is considered the grandfather of neoliberalism – a style of thought that reduces everything to economics – is a little ironic given that he was such a mediocre economist. ..."
"... This last is what makes neoliberalism "neo". It is a crucial modification of the older belief in a free market and a minimal state, known as "classical liberalism". In classical liberalism, merchants simply asked the state to "leave us alone" – to laissez-nous faire. Neoliberalism recognised that the state must be active in the organisation of a market economy. The conditions allowing for a free market must be won politically, and the state must be re-engineered to support the free market on an ongoing basis. ..."
"... Hayek had only his idea to console him; an idea so grand it would one day dissolve the ground beneath the feet of Keynes and every other intellectual. Left to its own devices, the price system functions as a kind of mind. And not just any mind, but an omniscient one: the market computes what individuals cannot grasp. Reaching out to him as an intellectual comrade-in-arms, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote to Hayek, saying: "No human mind has ever understood the whole scheme of a society At best a mind can understand its own version of the scheme, something much thinner, which bears to reality some such relation as a silhouette to a man." ..."
"... The only social end is the maintenance of the market itself. In its omniscience, the market constitutes the only legitimate form of knowledge, next to which all other modes of reflection are partial, in both senses of the word: they comprehend only a fragment of a whole and they plead on behalf of a special interest. Individually, our values are personal ones, or mere opinions; collectively, the market converts them into prices, or objective facts. ..."
"... According to the logic of Hayek's Big Idea, these expressions of human subjectivity are meaningless without ratification by the market ..."
"... ociety reconceived as a giant market leads to a public life lost to bickering over mere opinions; until the public turns, finally, in frustration to a strongman as a last resort for solving its otherwise intractable problems. ..."
"... What began as a new form of intellectual authority, rooted in a devoutly apolitical worldview, nudged easily into an ultra-reactionary politics ..."
The word ["neoliberalism"] has become a rhetorical weapon, but it properly names the reigning ideology of
our era – one that venerates the logic of the market and strips away the things that make us human.
Last summer, researchers at the International Monetary Fund settled a long and bitter debate over
"neoliberalism": they admitted it exists. Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not
known for its incaution, published
a paper questioning
the benefits of neoliberalism. In so doing, they helped put to rest the idea that the word is
nothing more than a political slur, or a term without any analytic power. The paper gently called
out a "neoliberal agenda" for pushing deregulation on economies around the world, for forcing open
national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity
or privatisation. The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since
1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality.
Neoliberalism is an old term, dating back to the 1930s, but it has been revived as a way of describing
our current politics – or more precisely,
the range of thought allowed by our politics . In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis,
it was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to
an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour
in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony
Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left's traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour
of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had
enabled a sickening rise in inequality.
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world – podcast
Over the past few years, as debates have turned uglier, the word has become a rhetorical weapon,
a way for anyone left of centre to incriminate those even an inch to their right. (No wonder centrists
say it's a meaningless insult: they're the ones most meaningfully insulted by it.) But "neoliberalism"
is more than a gratifyingly righteous jibe. It is also, in its way, a pair of eyeglasses.
Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most
admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market
(and
not, for example, a polis, a civil sphere or a kind of family) and of human beings as profit-and-loss
calculators (and not bearers of grace, or of inalienable rights and duties). Of course the goal
was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes
and deregulate. But "neoliberalism" indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list.
It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals.
Still peering through the lens, you see how, no less than the welfare state, the free market
is a human invention. You see how pervasively we are now urged to think of ourselves as proprietors
of our own talents and initiative, how glibly we are told to compete and adapt. You see the extent
to which a language formerly confined to chalkboard simplifications describing commodity markets
(competition, perfect information, rational behaviour) has been applied to all of society, until
it has invaded the grit of our personal lives, and how the attitude of the salesman has become enmeshed
in all modes of self-expression.
In short, "neoliberalism" is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises
with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that,
quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate
organising principle for human activity.
No sooner had neoliberalism been certified as real, and no sooner had it made clear the universal
hypocrisy of the market, than the populists and authoritarians came to power. In the US, Hillary
Clinton, the neoliberal arch-villain, lost – and to a man who knew just enough
to pretend he hated free trade . So are the eyeglasses now useless? Can they do anything to help
us understand what is broken about British and American politics? Against the forces of global
integration, national identity is being reasserted, and in the crudest possible terms. What could
the militant parochialism of Brexit Britain and Trumpist America have to do with neoliberal rationality?
What possible connection is there between the president – a freewheeling boob – and the bloodless
paragon of efficiency known as the free market?
It isn't only that the free market produces a tiny cadre of winners and an enormous army of
losers – and the losers, looking for revenge, have turned to Brexit and Trump. There was, from the
beginning, an inevitable relationship between the utopian ideal of the free market and the dystopian
present in which we find ourselves; between the market as unique discloser of value and guardian
of liberty, and our current descent into post-truth and illiberalism.
Moving the stale debate about neoliberalism forward begins, I think, with taking seriously the
measure of its cumulative effect on all of us, regardless of affiliation. And this requires returning
to its origins, which have nothing to do with Bill or Hillary Clinton. There once was a group of
people who did call themselves neoliberals, and did so proudly, and their ambition was a total revolution
in thought. The most prominent among them, Friedrich Hayek, did not think he was staking out a position
on the political spectrum, or making excuses for the fatuous rich, or tinkering along the edges of
microeconomics.
He thought he was solving the problem of modernity: the problem of objective knowledge. For Hayek,
the market didn't just facilitate trade in goods and services; it revealed truth. How did his ambition
collapse into its opposite – the mind-bending possibility that, thanks to our thoughtless veneration
of the free market, truth might be driven from public life altogether?
When the idea occurred to Friedrich Hayek in 1936, he knew, with the conviction of a "sudden illumination",
that he had struck upon something new. "How can the combination of fragments of knowledge existing
in different minds," he wrote, "bring about results which, if they were to be brought about deliberately,
would require a knowledge on the part of the directing mind which no single person can possess?"
This was not a technical point about interest rates or deflationary slumps. This was not a reactionary
polemic against collectivism or the welfare state. This was a way of birthing a new world. To his
mounting excitement, Hayek understood that the market could be thought of as a kind of mind.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" had already given us the modern conception of the market: as an
autonomous sphere of human activity and therefore, potentially, a valid object of scientific knowledge.
But Smith was, until the end of his life, an 18th-century moralist. He thought the market could be
justified only in light of individual virtue, and he was anxious that a society governed by nothing
but transactional self-interest was no society at all. Neoliberalism is Adam Smith without the anxiety.
That Hayek is considered the grandfather of neoliberalism – a style of thought that reduces
everything to economics – is a little ironic given that he was such a mediocre economist. He
was just a young, obscure Viennese technocrat when he was recruited to the London School of
Economics to compete
with, or possibly even dim, the rising star of John Maynard Keynes at Cambridge.
The plan backfired, and Hayek lost out to Keynes in a rout. Keynes's General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Money, published in 1936, was greeted as a masterpiece. It dominated the public discussion,
especially among young English economists in training, for whom the brilliant, dashing, socially
connected Keynes was a beau idéal . By the end of the second world war, many prominent free-marketers
had come around to Keynes's way of thinking, conceding that government might play a role in managing
a modern economy. The initial excitement over Hayek had dissipated. His peculiar notion that doing
nothing could cure an economic depression had been discredited in theory and practice. He later admitted
that he wished his work criticising Keynes would simply be forgotten.
... Hayek built into neoliberalism the assumption that the market provides all necessary protection
against the one real political danger: totalitarianism. To prevent this, the state need only keep
the market free.
This last is what makes neoliberalism "neo". It is a crucial modification of the older belief
in a free market and a minimal state, known as "classical liberalism". In classical liberalism, merchants
simply asked the state to "leave us alone" – to laissez-nous faire. Neoliberalism recognised that
the state must be active in the organisation of a market economy. The conditions allowing for a free
market must be won politically, and the state must be re-engineered to support the free market on
an ongoing basis.
That isn't all: every aspect of democratic politics, from the choices of voters to the decisions
of politicians, must be submitted to a purely economic analysis. The lawmaker is obliged to leave
well enough alone – to not distort the natural actions of the marketplace – and so, ideally, the
state provides a fixed, neutral, universal legal framework within which market forces operate spontaneously.
The conscious direction of government is never preferable to the "automatic mechanism of adjustment"
– ie the price system, which is not only efficient but maximises liberty, or the opportunity for
men and women to make free choices about their own lives.
As Keynes jetted between London and Washington, creating the postwar order, Hayek sat pouting
in Cambridge. He had been sent there during the wartime evacuations; and he complained that he was
surrounded by "foreigners" and "no lack of orientals of all kinds" and "Europeans of practically
all nationalities, but very few of real intelligence".
Stuck in England, without influence or respect, Hayek had only his idea to console him; an
idea so grand it would one day dissolve the ground beneath the feet of Keynes and every other intellectual.
Left to its own devices, the price system functions as a kind of mind. And not just any mind, but
an omniscient one: the market computes what individuals cannot grasp. Reaching out to him as an intellectual
comrade-in-arms, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote to Hayek, saying: "No human mind has
ever understood the whole scheme of a society At best a mind can understand its own version of
the scheme, something much thinner, which bears to reality some such relation as a silhouette to
a man."
It is a grand epistemological claim – that the market is a way of knowing, one that radically
exceeds the capacity of any individual mind. Such a market is less a human contrivance, to be manipulated
like any other, than a force to be studied and placated. Economics ceases to be a technique – as
Keynes believed it to be – for achieving desirable social ends, such as growth or stable money.
The only social end is the maintenance of the market itself. In its omniscience, the market constitutes
the only legitimate form of knowledge, next to which all other modes of reflection are partial, in
both senses of the word: they comprehend only a fragment of a whole and they plead on behalf of a
special interest. Individually, our values are personal ones, or mere opinions; collectively, the
market converts them into prices, or objective facts.
... ... ...
The more Hayek's idea expands, the more reactionary it gets, the more it hides behind its pretence
of scientific neutrality – and the more it allows economics to link up with the major intellectual
trend of the west since the 17th century. The rise of modern science generated a problem: if the
world is universally obedient to natural laws, what does it mean to be human? Is a human being simply
an object in the world, like any other? There appears to be no way to assimilate the subjective,
interior human experience into nature as science conceives it – as something objective whose rules
we discover by observation.
... ... ...
More than anyone, even Hayek himself, it was the great postwar Chicago economist Milton Friedman
who helped convert governments and politicians to the power of Hayek's Big Idea. But first he broke
with two centuries of precedent and declared that economics is "in principle independent of any particular
ethical position or normative judgments" and is "an 'objective' science, in precisely the same sense
as any of the physical sciences". Values of the old, mental, normative kind were defective, they
were "differences about which men can ultimately only fight". There is the market, in other words,
and there is relativism.
Markets may be human facsimiles of natural systems, and like the universe itself, they may be
authorless and valueless. But the application of Hayek's Big Idea to every aspect of our lives negates
what is most distinctive about us. That is, it assigns what is most human about human beings – our
minds and our volition – to algorithms and markets, leaving us to mimic, zombie-like, the shrunken
idealisations of economic models. Supersizing Hayek's idea and radically upgrading the price system
into a kind of social omniscience means radically downgrading the importance of our individual capacity
to reason – our ability to provide and evaluate justifications for our actions and beliefs.
As a result, the public sphere – the space where we offer up reasons, and contest the reasons
of others – ceases to be a space for deliberation, and becomes a market in clicks, likes and retweets.
The internet is personal preference magnified by algorithm; a pseudo-public space that echoes the
voice already inside our head. Rather than a space of debate in which we make our way, as a society,
toward consensus, now there is a mutual-affirmation apparatus banally referred to as a "marketplace
of ideas". What looks like something public and lucid is only an extension of our own pre-existing
opinions, prejudices and beliefs, while the authority of institutions and experts has been displaced
by the aggregative logic of big data. When we access the world through a search engine, its results
are ranked, as the founder of Google puts it, "recursively" – by an infinity of individual users
functioning as a market, continuously and in real time.
... ... ...
According to the logic of Hayek's Big Idea, these expressions of human subjectivity are meaningless
without ratification by the market – as Friedman said, they are nothing but relativism, each
as good as any other. When the only objective truth is determined by the market, all other values
have the status of mere opinions; everything else is relativist hot air. But Friedman's "relativism"
is a charge that can be thrown at any claim based on human reason. It is a nonsense insult, as all
humanistic pursuits are "relative" in a way the sciences are not. They are relative to the (private)
condition of having a mind, and the (public) need to reason and understand even when we can't expect
scientific proof. When our debates are no longer resolved by deliberation over reasons, then the
whimsies of power will determine the outcome.
This is where the triumph of neoliberalism meets the political nightmare we are living through
now. "You had one job," the old joke goes, and Hayek's grand project, as originally conceived in
30s and 40s, was explicitly designed to prevent a backslide into political chaos and fascism. But
the Big Idea was always this abomination waiting to happen. It was, from the beginning, pregnant
with the thing it was said to protect against. Society reconceived as a giant market leads to
a public life lost to bickering over mere opinions; until the public turns, finally, in frustration
to a strongman as a last resort for solving its otherwise intractable problems.
... ... ...
What began as a new form of intellectual authority, rooted in a devoutly apolitical worldview,
nudged easily into an ultra-reactionary politics. What can't be quantified must not be real,
says the economist, and how do you measure the benefits of the core faiths of the enlightenment –
namely, critical reasoning, personal autonomy and democratic self-government? When we abandoned,
for its embarrassing residue of subjectivity, reason as a form of truth, and made science the sole
arbiter of both the real and the true, we created a void that pseudo-science was happy to fill.
At a cabin in the Washington state woods, the reSTART center helps residents withdraw from technology
that has consumed their lives in Redmond, Washington.
By the time Marshall Carpenter's father broke down the barricaded door of his son's apartment
and physically ripped him away from his electronic devices, the 25-year-old was in a bad way. He
could not bear to live a life that didn't involve hours upon hours of uninterrupted screen time.
"I was playing video games 14 or 15 hours a day, I had Netflix on a loop in the background, and
any time there was the tiniest break in any of that, I would be playing a game on my phone or sending
lonely texts to ex-girlfriends," Carpenter says.
We are sitting in a small, plain apartment in a nondescript condo complex in Redmond, Washington,
on the outskirts of Seattle. Marshall shares the apartment with other men in their 20s, all of whom
have recently emerged from a unique internet addiction rehab program called reSTART Life.
"I was basically living on Dr Pepper, which is packed with caffeine and sugar. I would get weak
from not eating but I would only notice it when I got so shaky I stopped being able to think and
play well," he adds. By then, he'd already had to drop out of university in Michigan and had lost
his sports scholarship.
His new friends Charlie and Peter nod sagely. Charlie Bracke, 28, was suicidal and had lost his
job when he realized his online gaming was totally out of control. He can't remember a time in his
life before he was not playing video games of some kind: he reckons he began when he was about four
and was addicted by the age of nine.
Marshall and Charlie at reSTART, an internet addiction center.
Marshall and Charlie at reSTART, with Charlie's dog, Minerva. Photograph: Rafael Soldi for the
Guardian
For Peter, 31, who preferred to withhold his last name, the low came when he had been homeless
for six months and was living in his car.
"I would stay in church parking lots and put sunshades up on the windows and spend all day in
my car on my tablet device," he says.
He was addicted to internet porn, masturbating six to 10 times a day, to the point where he was
bleeding but would continue.
When he wasn't doing that, he was so immersed in the fantasy battle game World of Warcraft that
in his mind, he was no longer a person sitting at a screen, but an avatar: the bold dwarvish hero
Tarokalas, "shooting guns and assassinating the enemy" as he ran through a Tolkien-esque virtual
realm.
And when he wasn't doing that, he would read online news reports obsessively and exercise his
political opinions and a hair-trigger temper in the comment section of The Economist, projecting
himself pseudonymously as a swaggering blogger-cum-troll.
"I was a virgin until I was 29. Then I had sex with a lap dancer at a strip club. That's something
I never thought I would do," he says.
After completing the initial $25,000, 45-day residential stage at the main "campus" a few miles
away, clients move into the cheaper, off-site secondary phase. Here they get to share a normal apartment,
on the condition that they continue with psychotherapy, attend Alcoholics Anonymous-style 12-step
meetings, search for work and avoid the internet for a minimum of six months.
Marshall, Charlie and Peter successfully completed the second phase and have graduated from the
reSTART program, but they have chosen to stay in the same apartment complex and rent with other recovering
gamers as they continue to reboot their lives.
Mostly they carry only flip phones and have to go to the library when they want to check email.
"I'm taking my life in six-month chunks at this stage. So far I haven't relapsed into gaming and
I'm feeling optimistic," says Bracke.
An addiction overwhelmingly afflicting men
A climbing wall at the main ReStart campus, deep in the woods.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
A climbing wall at the main reSTART campus, deep in the woods. Photograph: Rafael Soldi for the
Guardian
Nine miles east, down a dirt track off a country road that winds through forests, six young men
are sitting in a wooden cabin amid a cluster of moss-draped trees – the reSTART campus.
Spring sunshine is flooding through the windows and the only sounds are birds singing and the
men cracking their knuckles as they stare at the floor.
They have recently arrived at rehab.
Hilarie Cash, a psychotherapist and the chief clinical officer at reSTART, asks the guys to begin
a communication exercise.
Philip, 22, steps into the middle of the group. He's been here for three weeks and is on a year's
medical leave from Duke University after getting hooked on Dota 2, the sequel to the fantasy battle
game Defense of the Ancients. He asks Adam, who only arrived four days ago and is fidgeting awkwardly,
to stand up and face him. (The real names of those currently in the residential program have been
withheld.)
Kevin, who has been here for four weeks, coaches them through an exercise known in counseling
circles as the "listening cycle", designed to facilitate emotional conversations in relationships.
It's a basic introduction for the new guy.
Fears grow for children addicted to online games
Read more
Philip, who was underweight when he arrived, says to Adam, who is overweight: "I'm worried that
you're not eating healthily. I noticed you've been skipping dinner."
Adam is meant to repeat back to Philip what he heard him say the problem is. He mumbles, barely
audible, and can't seem to remember what he's just been told.
He's unable to focus, and the air is thick with reluctance and embarrassment.
Stephen, another newbie, is gazing at the ceiling, yawning, sighing, then looking mildly irritated.
Alex, 20, comes to the rescue. He arrived at rehab in January but has popped back to visit the
group and explains: "It's so hard at the beginning. Day one here, I was a wreck, and the first two
weeks I was backsliding."
His games of choice were The Legend of Zelda, a solo action adventure series, where "instead of
being the depressed piece of shit I was in real life" he could exist as a swashbuckling hero.
Adapting to a tech-free world structured around rural communal living and social skills was a
nightmare, he says. "I wouldn't join in at first and I got called out for it by the others."
The study found that both greater overall time spent inactive in a day, and longer periods of
inactivity were linked to an increased risk of death.
Writing in
the journal the Annals of Internal Medicine , Diaz and colleagues from seven U.S. institutions
describe how they kitted out nearly 8,000 individuals aged 45 or over from across the U.S. with activity
trackers between 2009 and 2013. Each participant wore the fitness tracker for at least four days
during a period of one week, with deaths of participants tracked until September 2015.
The results reveal that, on average, participants were inactive for 12.3 hours of a 16 hour waking
day, with each period of inactivity lasting an average of 11.4 minutes. After taking into account
a host of factors including age, sex, education, smoking and high blood pressure, the team found
that both the overall length of daily inactivity and the length of each bout of sedentary behavior
were linked to changes in the risk of death from any cause. The associations held even among participants
undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity. T
hose who were inactive for 13.2 hours a day had a risk of death 2.6 times that of those spending
less than 11.5 hours a day inactive, while those whose bouts of inactivity lasted on average 12.4
minutes or more had a risk of death almost twice that of those who were inactive for an average of
less than 7.7 minutes at a time.
The team then looked at the interaction between the two measures of inactivity, finding the risk
of death was greater for those who had both high overall levels of inactivity (12.5 hours a day or
more) and long average bouts of sedentary behavior (10 minutes or more), than for those who had high
levels of just one of the measures.
"... Consumerism fills the social void. But far from curing the disease of isolation, it intensifies social comparison to the point at which, having consumed all else, we start to prey upon ourselves. Social media brings us together and drives us apart, allowing us precisely to quantify our social standing, and to see that other people have more friends and followers than we do. ..."
"... A recent survey in England suggests that one in four women between 16 and 24 have harmed themselves, and one in eight now suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Anxiety, depression, phobias or obsessive compulsive disorder affect 26% of women in this age group. This is what a public health crisis looks like. ..."
"... Opioids relieve both physical agony and the distress of separation. Perhaps this explains the link between social isolation and drug addiction. ..."
"... Children who experience emotional neglect, according to some findings, suffer worse mental health consequences than children suffering both emotional neglect and physical abuse: hideous as it is, violence involves attention and contact. Self-harm is often used as an attempt to alleviate distress: another indication that physical pain is not as bad as emotional pain. As the prison system knows only too well, one of the most effective forms of torture is solitary confinement. ..."
"... It's unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated with depression, suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat. It's more surprising to discover the range of physical illnesses it causes or exacerbates. Dementia, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses, even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people. Loneliness has a comparable impact on physical health to smoking 15 cigarettes a day: it appears to raise the risk of early death by 26%. This is partly because it enhances production of the stress hormone cortisol, which suppresses the immune system. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a project that explicitly aims, and has achieved, the undermining and elimination of social networks in favour of market competition ..."
"... In practice, loosening social and legal institutions has reduced social security (in the general sense rather than simply welfare payments) and encouraged the limitation of social interaction to money based activity ..."
"... All powerful institutions have a vested interest in keeping us atomized and individualistic. The gangs at the top don't want competition. They're afraid of us. In particular, they're afraid of men organising into gangs. That's where this very paper comes in ..."
"... The alienation genie was out of the bottle with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and mass migration to cities began and we abandoned living in village communities ..."
"... Neoliberalism expressly encourages 'atomisation'- it is all about reducing human interaction to markets. And so this is just one of the reasons that neoliberalism is such a bunk philosophy. ..."
"... My stab at an answer would first question the notion that we are engaging in anything. That presupposes we are making the choices. Those who set out the options are the ones that make the choices. We are being engaged by the grotesquely privileged and the pathologically greedy in an enterprise that profits them still further. It suits the 1% very well strategically, for obvious reasons, that the 99% don't swap too many ideas with each other. ..."
"... According to Robert Putnam, as societies become more ethnically diverse they lose social capital, contributing to the type of isolation and loneliness which George describes. Doesn't sound as evil as neoliberalism I suppose. ..."
"... multiculturalism is a direct result of Neoliberalism. The market rules and people are secondary. Everything must be done for business owners, and that everything means access to cheap labor. ..."
"... I'd have thought what he really wants to say is that loneliness as a phenomenon in modern Western society arises out of an intent on the part of our political and social elites to divide us all into competing against one another, as individuals and as members of groups, all the better to keep us under control and prevent us from working together to claim our fair share of resources. ..."
"... Has it occurred to you that the collapse in societal values has allowed 'neo-liberalism' to take hold? ..."
"... No. It has been the concentrated propaganda of the "free" press. Rupert Murdoch in particular, but many other well-funded organisations working in the background over 50 years. They are winning. ..."
"... We're fixated on a magical, abstract concept called "the economy". Everything must be done to help "the economy", even if this means adults working through their weekends, neglecting their children, neglecting their elderly parents, eating at their desks, getting diabetes, breaking down from stress, and giving up on a family life. ..."
"... You can make a reasonable case that 'Neoliberalism' expects that every interaction, including between individuals, can be reduced to a financial one. ..."
"... As can be seen from many of the posts, neo-liberalism depends on, and fosters, ignorance, an inability to see things from historical and different perspectives and social and intellectual disciplines. On a sociological level how other societies are arranged throws up interesting comparisons. Scandanavian countries, which have mostly avoided neo-liberalism by and large, are happier, healthier places to live. America and eastern countries arranged around neo-liberal, market driven individualism, are unhappy places, riven with mental and physical health problems and many more social problems of violence, crime and suicide. ..."
"... The people who fosted this this system onto us, are now either very old or dead. We're living in the shadow of their revolutionary transformation of our more equitable post-war society. Hayek, Friedman, Keith Joseph, Thatcher, Greenspan and tangentially but very influentially Ayn Rand. Although a remainder (I love the wit of the term 'Remoaner') , Brexit can be better understood in the context of the death-knell of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Criticism of his hypotheses on this thread (where articualted at all) focus on the existence of solitude and loneliness prior to neo liberalism, which seems to me to be to deliberately miss his point: this was formerly a minor phenomenon, yet is now writ on an incredible scale - and it is a social phenomenon particular to those western economies whose elites have most enthusiastically embraced neo liberalism. ..."
"... We all want is to: (and feel we have the right to) wear the best clothes, have the foreign holidays, own the latest tech and eat the finest foods. At the same time our rights have increased and awareness of our responsibilities have minimized. The execution of common sense and an awareness that everything that goes wrong will always be someone else fault. ..."
"... We are not all special snowflakes, princesses or worthy of special treatment, but we act like self absorbed, entitled individuals. Whether that's entitled to benefits, the front of the queue or bumped into first because its our birthday! ..."
"... Unhealthy social interaction, yes. You can never judge what is natural to humans based on contemporary Britain. Anthropologists repeatedly find that what we think natural is merely a social construct created by the system we are subject to. ..."
"... We are becoming fearful of each other and I believe the insecurity we feel plays a part in this. ..."
"... We have become so disconnected from ourselves and focused on battling to stay afloat. Having experienced periods of severe stress due to lack of money I couldn't even begin to think about how I felt, how happy I was, what I really wanted to do with my life. I just had to pay my landlord, pay the bills and try and put some food on my table so everything else was totally neglected. ..."
"... We need a radical change of political thinking to focus on quality of life rather than obsession with the size of our economy. High levels of immigration of people who don't really integrate into their local communities has fractured our country along with the widening gap between rich and poor. Governments only see people in terms of their "economic value" - hence mothers being driven out to work, children driven into daycare and the elderly driven into care homes. Britain is becoming a soulless place - even our great British comedy is on the decline. ..."
"... Quality of life is far more important than GDP I agree but it is also far more important than inequality. ..."
"... Thatcher was only responsible for "letting it go" in Britain in 1980, but actually it was already racing ahead around the world. ..."
"... Eric Fromm made similar arguments to Monbiot about the psychological impact of modern capitalism (Fear of Freedom and The Sane Society) - although the Freudian element is a tad outdated. However, for all the faults of modern society, I'd rather be unhappy now than in say, Victorian England. Similarly, life in the West is preferable to the obvious alternatives. ..."
"... Whilst it's very important to understand how neoliberalism, the ideology that dare not speak it's name, derailed the general progress in the developed world. It's also necessary to understand that the roots this problem go much further back. Not merely to the start of the industrial revolution, but way beyond that. It actually began with the first civilizations when our societies were taken over by powerful rulers, and they essentially started to farm the people they ruled like cattle. On the one hand they declared themselves protector of their people, whilst ruthlessly exploiting them for their own political gain. I use the livestock farming analogy, because that explains what is going on. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism allows psychopaths to flourish, and it has been argued by Robert Hare that they are disproportionately represented in the highest echelons of society. So people who lack empathy and emotional attachment are probably weilding a significant amount of influence over the way our economy and society is organised. Is it any wonder that they advocate an economic model which is most conducive to their success? Things like job security, rigged markets, unions, and higher taxes on the rich simply get in their way. ..."
"... . Data suggests that inequality has widened massively over the last 30 years ( https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/infographic-income-inequality-uk ) - as has social mobility ( https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts ). Homelessness has risen substantially since 1979. ..."
"... As a director and CEO of an organisation employing several hundred people I became aware that 40% of the staff lived alone and that the workplace was important to them not only for work but also for interacting with their colleagues socially . ..."
"... A thoughtful article. But the rich and powerful will ignore it; their doing very well out of neo liberalism thank you. Meanwhile many of those whose lives are affected by it don't want to know - they're happy with their bigger TV screen. Which of course is what the neoliberals want, 'keep the people happy and in the dark'. An old Roman tactic - when things weren't going too well for citizens and they were grumbling the leaders just extended the 'games'. Evidently it did the trick ..."
"... Sounds like the inevitable logical outcome of a society where the predator sociopathic and their scared prey are all that is allowed. This dynamic dualistic tautology, the slavish terrorised to sleep and bullying narcissistic individual, will always join together to protect their sick worldview by pathologising anything that will threaten their hegemony of power abuse: compassion, sensitivity, moral conscience, altruism and the immediate effects of the ruthless social effacement or punishment of the same ie human suffering. ..."
"... "Alienation, in all areas, has reached unprecedented heights; the social machinery for deluding consciousnesses in the interest of the ruling class has been perfected as never before. The media are loaded with upscale advertising identifying sophistication with speciousness. Television, in constant use, obliterates the concept under the image and permanently feeds a baseless credulity for events and history. Against the will of many students, school doesn't develop the highly cultivated critical capacities that a real sovereignty of the people would require. And so on. ..."
"... There's no question - neoliberalism has been wrenching society apart. It's not as if the prime movers of this ideology were unaware of the likely outcome viz. "there is no such thing as society" (Thatcher). Actually in retrospect the whole zeitgeist from the late 70s emphasised the atomised individual separated from the whole. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (1976) may have been influential in creating that climate. ..."
"... I would add that the basic concepts of the Neoliberal New world order are fundamentally Evil, from the control of world population through supporting of strife starvation and war to financial inducements of persons in positions of power. Let us not forget the training of our younger members of our society who have been induced to a slavish love of technology. ..."
"... The kind of personal freedom that you say goes hand in hand with capitalism is an illusion for the majority of people. It holds up the prospect of that kind of freedom, but only a minority get access to it. ..."
"... Problems in society are not solved by having a one hour a week class on "self esteem". In fact self-esteem and self-worth comes from the things you do. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the bastard child of globalization which in effect is Americanization. The basic premise is the individual is totally reliant on the corporate world state aided by a process of fear inducing mechanisms, pharmacology is one of the tools. No community no creativity no free thinking. Poded sealed and cling filmed a quasi existence. ..."
"... Having grown up during the Thatcher years, I entirely agree that neoliberalism has divided society by promoting individual self-optimisation at the expensive of everyone else. ..."
"... There is no such thing as a free-market society. Your society of 'self-interest' is really a state supported oligarchy. If you really want to live in a society where there is literally no state and a more or less open market try Somalia or a Latin American city run by drug lords - but even then there are hierarchies, state involvement, militias. ..."
"... Furthermore, a society in which people are encouraged to be narrowly selfish is just plain uncivilized. Since when have sociopathy and barbarism been something to aspire to? ..."
"... Why don't we explore some of the benefits?.. Following the long list of some the diseases, loneliness can inflict on individuals, there must be a surge in demand for all sort of medications; anti-depressants must be topping the list. There is a host many other anti-stress treatments available of which Big Pharma must be carving the lion's share. Examine the micro-economic impact immediately following a split or divorce. There is an instant doubling on the demand for accommodation, instant doubling on the demand for electrical and household items among many other products and services. But the icing on the cake and what is really most critical for Neoliberalism must be this: With the morale barometer hitting the bottom, people will be less likely to think of a better future, and therefore, less likely to protest. In fact, there is nothing left worth protecting. ..."
"... Your freedom has been curtailed. Your rights are evaporating in front of your eyes. And Best of all, from the authorities' perspective, there is no relationship to defend and there is no family to protect. If you have a job, you want to keep, you must prove your worthiness every day to 'a company'. ..."
What greater indictment of a system could there be than an epidemic of mental
illness? Yet plagues of anxiety, stress, depression, social phobia, eating disorders,
self-harm and loneliness now strike people down all over the world. The latest,
catastrophic figures for children's mental health in England reflect a global
crisis.
There are plenty of secondary reasons for this distress, but it seems to
me that the underlying cause is everywhere the same: human beings, the ultrasocial
mammals, whose brains are wired to respond to other people, are being peeled
apart. Economic and technological change play a major role, but so does ideology.
Though our wellbeing is inextricably linked to the lives of others, everywhere
we are told that we will prosper through competitive self-interest and extreme
individualism.
In Britain, men who have spent their entire lives in quadrangles – at school,
at college, at the bar, in parliament – instruct us to stand on our own two
feet. The education system becomes more brutally competitive by the year. Employment
is a fight to the near-death with a multitude of other desperate people chasing
ever fewer jobs. The modern overseers of the poor ascribe individual blame to
economic circumstance. Endless competitions on television feed impossible aspirations
as real opportunities contract.
Consumerism fills the social void. But far from curing the disease of
isolation, it intensifies social comparison to the point at which, having consumed
all else, we start to prey upon ourselves. Social media brings us together and
drives us apart, allowing us precisely to quantify our social standing, and
to see that other people have more friends and followers than we do.
As Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett has brilliantly documented, girls and young women
routinely alter the photos they post to make themselves look smoother and slimmer.
Some phones, using their "beauty" settings, do it for you without asking; now
you can become your own thinspiration. Welcome to the post-Hobbesian dystopia:
a war of everyone against themselves.
Social media brings us together and drives us apart, allowing us precisely
to quantify our social standing
Is it any wonder, in these lonely inner worlds, in which touching has been
replaced by retouching, that young women are drowning in mental distress?
A recent survey in England suggests that one in four women between 16 and
24 have harmed themselves, and one in eight now suffer from post-traumatic stress
disorder. Anxiety, depression, phobias or obsessive compulsive disorder affect
26% of women in this age group. This is what a public health crisis looks like.
If social rupture is not treated as seriously as broken limbs, it is because
we cannot see it. But neuroscientists can. A series of fascinating papers suggest
that social pain and physical pain are processed by the same neural circuits.
This might explain why, in many languages, it is hard to describe the impact
of breaking social bonds without the words we use to denote physical pain and
injury. In both humans and other social mammals, social contact reduces physical
pain. This is why we hug our children when they hurt themselves: affection is
a powerful analgesic. Opioids relieve both physical agony and the distress
of separation. Perhaps this explains the link between social isolation and drug
addiction.
Experiments summarised in the journal Physiology & Behaviour last month suggest
that, given a choice of physical pain or isolation, social mammals will choose
the former. Capuchin monkeys starved of both food and contact for 22 hours will
rejoin their companions before eating. Children who experience emotional
neglect, according to some findings, suffer worse mental health consequences
than children suffering both emotional neglect and physical abuse: hideous as
it is, violence involves attention and contact. Self-harm is often used as an
attempt to alleviate distress: another indication that physical pain is not
as bad as emotional pain. As the prison system knows only too well, one of the
most effective forms of torture is solitary confinement.
It is not hard to see what the evolutionary reasons for social pain might
be. Survival among social mammals is greatly enhanced when they are strongly
bonded with the rest of the pack. It is the isolated and marginalised animals
that are most likely to be picked off by predators, or to starve. Just as physical
pain protects us from physical injury, emotional pain protects us from social
injury. It drives us to reconnect. But many people find this almost impossible.
It's unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated with depression,
suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat. It's more surprising
to discover the range of physical illnesses it causes or exacerbates. Dementia,
high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses,
even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people. Loneliness has
a comparable impact on physical health to smoking 15 cigarettes a day: it appears
to raise the risk of early death by 26%. This is partly because it enhances
production of the stress hormone cortisol, which suppresses the immune system.
Studies in both animals and humans suggest a reason for comfort eating: isolation
reduces impulse control, leading to obesity. As those at the bottom of the socioeconomic
ladder are the most likely to suffer from loneliness, might this provide one
of the explanations for the strong link between low economic status and obesity?
Anyone can see that something far more important than most of the issues
we fret about has gone wrong. So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming
frenzy of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces
is unbearable pain? Should this question not burn the lips of everyone in public
life?
There are some wonderful charities doing what they can to fight this tide,
some of which I am going to be working with as part of my loneliness project.
But for every person they reach, several others are swept past.
This does not require a policy response. It requires something much bigger:
the reappraisal of an entire worldview. Of all the fantasies human beings entertain,
the idea that we can go it alone is the most absurd and perhaps the most dangerous.
We stand together or we fall apart.
Well its a bit of a stretch blaming neoliberalism for creating loneliness.
Yet it seems to be the fashion today to imagine that the world we live in
is new...only created just years ago. And all the suffering that we see
now never existed before. Plagues of anxiety, stress, depression, social
phobia, eating disorders, self-harm and loneliness never happened in
the past, because everything was bright and shiny and world was good.
Regrettably history teaches us that suffering and deprivation have dogged
mankind for centuries, if not tens of thousands of years. That's what we
do; survive, persist...endure. Blaming 'neoliberalism' is a bit of cop-out.
It's the human condition man, just deal with it.
Some of the connections here are a bit tenuous, to say the least, including
the link to political ideology. Economic liberalism is usually accompanied
with social conservatism, and vice versa. Right wing ideologues are more
likely to emphasize the values of marriage and family stability, while left
wing ones are more likely to favor extremes of personal freedom and reject
those traditional structures that used to bind us together.
You're a little confused there in your connections between policies, intentions
and outcomes. Nevertheless, Neoliberalism is a project that explicitly
aims, and has achieved, the undermining and elimination of social networks
in favour of market competition.
In practice, loosening social and legal institutions has reduced
social security (in the general sense rather than simply welfare payments)
and encouraged the limitation of social interaction to money based activity.
That holds true when you're talking about demographics/voters.
Economic and social liberalism go hand in hand in the West. No matter
who's in power, the establishment pushes both but will do one or the other
covertly.
All powerful institutions have a vested interest in keeping us atomized
and individualistic. The gangs at the top don't want competition. They're
afraid of us. In particular, they're afraid of men organising into gangs.
That's where this very paper comes in.
The alienation genie was out of the bottle with the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution and mass migration to cities began and we abandoned
living in village communities. Over the ensuing approx 250 years we
abandoned geographically close relationships with extended families, especially
post WW2. Underlying economic structures both capitalist and marxist dissolved
relationships that we as communal primates evolved within. Then accelerate
this mess with (anti-) social media the last 20 years along with economic
instability and now dissolution of even the nuclear family (which couldn't
work in the first place, we never evolved to live with just two parents
looking after children) and here we have it: Mass mental illness. Solution?
None. Just form the best type of extended community both within and outside
of family, be engaged and generours with your community hope for the best.
Indeed, Industrialisation of our pre-prescribed lifestyle is a huge factor.
In particular, our food, it's low quality, it's 24 hour avaliability, it's
cardboard box ambivalence, has caused a myriad of health problems. Industrialisation
is about profit for those that own the 'production-line' & much less about
the needs of the recipient.
It's unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated
with depression, suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception
of threat.
Yes, although there is some question of which order things go in. A supportive
social network is clearly helpful, but it's hardly a simple cause and effect.
Levels of different mental health problems appear to differ widely across
societies just in Europe, and it isn't particularly the case that more capitalist
countries have greater incidence than less capitalist ones.
You could just as well blame atheism. Since the rise of neo-liberalism
and drop in church attendance track each other pretty well, and since for
all their ills churches did provide a social support group, why not blame
that?
While attending a church is likely to alleviate loneliness, atheism doesn't
expressly encourage limiting social interactions and selfishness. And of
course, reduced church attendance isn't exactly the same as atheism.
Neoliberalism expressly encourages 'atomisation'- it is all about
reducing human interaction to markets. And so this is just one of the reasons
that neoliberalism is such a bunk philosophy.
So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming frenzy
of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces
is unbearable pain?
My stab at an answer would first question the notion that we
are engaging in anything. That presupposes we are making the
choices. Those who set out the options are the ones that make the choices.
We are being engaged by the grotesquely privileged and the pathologically
greedy in an enterprise that profits them still further. It suits the 1%
very well strategically, for obvious reasons, that the 99% don't swap too
many ideas with each other.
We as individuals are offered the 'choice' of consumption as an alternative
to the devastating ennui engendered by powerlessness. It's no choice at
all of course, because consumption merely enriches the 1% and exacerbates
our powerlessness. That was the whole point of my post.
The 'choice' to consume is never collectively exercised as you suggest.
Sadly. If it was, 'we' might be able to organise ourselves into doing something
about it.
According to Robert Putnam, as societies become more ethnically diverse
they lose social capital, contributing to the type of isolation and loneliness
which George describes. Doesn't sound as evil as neoliberalism I suppose.
Disagree. Im British but have had more foreign friends than British. The
UK middle class tend to be boring insular social status obsessed drones.other
nationalities have this too, but far less so
Well, yes, but multiculturalism is a direct result of Neoliberalism.
The market rules and people are secondary. Everything must be done for business
owners, and that everything means access to cheap labor.
Multiculturalism isn't the only thing destroying social cohesion, too.
It was being destroyed long before the recent surges of immigrants. It was
reported many times in the 1980's in communities made up of only one culture.
In many ways, it is being used as the obvious distraction from all the other
ways Fundamentalist Free Marketers wreck live for many.
This post perhaps ranges too widely to the point of being vague and general,
and leading Monbiot to make some huge mental leaps, linking loneliness to
a range of mental and physical problems without being able to explain, for
example, the link between loneliness and obesity and all the steps in-between
without risking derailment into a side issue.
I'd have thought what he really wants to say is that loneliness as
a phenomenon in modern Western society arises out of an intent on the part
of our political and social elites to divide us all into competing against
one another, as individuals and as members of groups, all the better to
keep us under control and prevent us from working together to claim our
fair share of resources.
Are you familiar with the term 'Laughter is the best medicine'? Well, it's
true. When you laugh, your brain releases endorphins, yeah? Your stress
hormones are reduced and the oxygen supply to your blood is increased, so...
I try to laugh several times a day just because... it makes you feel
good! Let's try that, eh? Ohohoo... Hahaha... Just, just... Hahahaha...
Come on, trust me.. you'll feel.. HahaHAhaha! O-o-o-o-a-hahahahaa... Share
No. It has been the concentrated propaganda of the "free" press. Rupert
Murdoch in particular, but many other well-funded organisations working
in the background over 50 years. They are winning.
We're fixated on a magical, abstract concept called "the economy".
Everything must be done to help "the economy", even if this means adults
working through their weekends, neglecting their children, neglecting their
elderly parents, eating at their desks, getting diabetes, breaking down
from stress, and giving up on a family life.
Impertinent managers ban their staff from office relationships, as company
policy, because the company is more important than its staff's wellbeing.
Companies hand out "free" phones that allow managers to harrass staff
for work out of hours, on the understanding that they will be sidelined
if thy don't respond.
And the wellbeing of "the economy" is of course far more important than
whether the British people actually want to merge into a European superstate.
What they want is irrelevant.
That nasty little scumbag George Osborne was the apotheosis of this ideology,
but he was abetted by journalists who report any rise in GDP as "good" -
no matter how it was obtained - and any "recession" to be the equivalent
of a major natural disaster.
If we go on this way, the people who suffer the most will be the rich,
because it will be them swinging from the lamp-posts, or cowering in gated
communities that they dare not leave (Venezuela, South Africa). Those riots
in London five years ago were a warning. History is littered with them.
You can make a reasonable case that 'Neoliberalism' expects that every
interaction, including between individuals, can be reduced to a financial
one. If this results in loneliness then that's certainly a downside
- but the upside is that billions have been lifted out of absolute poverty
worldwide by 'Neoliberalism'.
Mr Monbiot creates a compelling argument that we should end 'Neoliberalism'
but he is very vague about what should replace it other than a 'different
worldview'. Destruction is easy, but creation is far harder.
As a retired teacher it grieves me greatly to see the way our education
service has become obsessed by testing and assessment. Sadly the results
are used not so much to help children learn and develop, but rather as a
club to beat schools and teachers with. Pressurised schools produce pressurised
children. Compare and contrast with education in Finland where young people
are not formally assessed until they are 17 years old. We now assess toddlers
in nursery schools.
SATs in Primary schools had children concentrating on obscure grammatical
terms and usage which they will never ever use again. Pointless and counter-productive.
Gradgrind values driving out the joy of learning.
And promoting anxiety and mental health problems.
It is all the things you describe, Mr Monbiot, and then some. This dystopian
hell, when anything that did work is broken and all things that have never
worked are lined up for a little tinkering around the edges until the camouflage
is good enough to kid people it is something new. It isn't just neoliberal
madness that has created this, it is selfish human nature that has made
it possible, corporate fascism that has hammered it into shape. and an army
of mercenaries who prefer the take home pay to morality. Crime has always
paid especially when governments are the crooks exercising the law.
The value of life has long been forgotten as now the only thing that
matters is how much you can be screwed for either dead or alive. And yet
the Trumps, the Clintons, the Camerons, the Johnsons, the Merkels, the Mays,
the news media, the banks, the whole crooked lot of them, all seem to believe
there is something worth fighting for in what they have created, when painfully
there is not. We need revolution and we need it to be lead by those who
still believe all humanity must be humble, sincere, selfless and most of
all morally sincere. Freedom, justice, and equality for all, because the
alternative is nothing at all.
Ive long considered neo-liberalism as the cause of many of our problems,
particularly the rise in mental health problems, alienation and loneliness.
As can be seen from many of the posts, neo-liberalism depends on, and
fosters, ignorance, an inability to see things from historical and different
perspectives and social and intellectual disciplines. On a sociological
level how other societies are arranged throws up interesting comparisons. Scandanavian countries, which have mostly avoided neo-liberalism by and
large, are happier, healthier places to live. America and eastern countries
arranged around neo-liberal, market driven individualism, are unhappy places,
riven with mental and physical health problems and many more social problems
of violence, crime and suicide.
The worst thing is that the evidence shows it doesn't work. Not one of
the privatisations in this country have worked. All have been worse than
what they've replaced, all have cost more, depleted the treasury and led
to massive homelessness, increased mental health problems with the inevitable
financial and social costs, costs which are never acknowledged by its adherents.
Put crudely, the more " I'm alright, fuck you " attitude is fostered,
the worse societies are. Empires have crashed and burned under similar attitudes.
The people who fosted this this system onto us, are now either very old
or dead.
We're living in the shadow of their revolutionary transformation of our
more equitable post-war society. Hayek, Friedman, Keith Joseph, Thatcher,
Greenspan and tangentially but very influentially Ayn Rand.
Although a remainder (I love the wit of the term 'Remoaner') , Brexit can
be better understood in the context of the death-knell of neoliberalism.
I never understood how the collapse of world finance, resulted in a right
wing resurgence in the UK and the US. The Tea Party in the US made the absurd
claim that the failure of global finance was not due to markets being fallible,
but because free markets had not been enforced citing Fanny Mae and Freddie
Mac as their evidence and of Bill Clinton insisting on more poor and black
people being given mortgages.
I have a terrible sense that it will not go quietly, there will be massive
global upheavals as governments struggle deal with its collapse.
I have never really agreed with GM - but this article hits the nail on the
head.
I think there are a number of aspects to this:
The internet. The being in constant contact, our lives mapped and
our thoughts analysed - we can comment on anything (whether informed or
total drivel) and we've been fed the lie that our opinion is is right and
that it matters) Ive removed fscebook and twitter from my phone, i have
never been happier
Rolling 24 hour news. That is obsessed with the now, and consistently
squeezes very complex issues into bite sized simple dichotomies. Obsessed
with results and critical in turn of everyone who fails to feed the machine
The increasing slicing of work into tighter and slimmer specialisms,
with no holistic view of the whole, this forces a box ticking culture. "Ive
stamped my stamp, my work is done" this leads to a lack of ownership of
the whole. PIP assessments are an almost perfect example of this - a box
ticking exercise, designed by someone who'll never have to go through it,
with no flexibility to put the answers into a holistic context.
Our education system is designed to pass exams and not prepare for
the future or the world of work - the only important aspect being the compilation
of next years league tables and the schools standings. This culture is neither
healthy no helpful, as students are schooled on exam technique in order
to squeeze out the marks - without putting the knowledge into a meaningful
and understandable narrative.
Apologies for the long post - I normally limit myself to a trite insulting
comment :) but felt more was required in this instance.
Overall, I agree with your points. Monbiot here adopts a blunderbuss approach
(competitive self-interest and extreme individualism; "brutal" education,
employment social security; consumerism, social media and vanity). Criticism
of his hypotheses on this thread (where articualted at all) focus on the
existence of solitude and loneliness prior to neo liberalism, which seems
to me to be to deliberately miss his point: this was formerly a minor phenomenon,
yet is now writ on an incredible scale - and it is a social phenomenon particular
to those western economies whose elites have most enthusiastically embraced
neo liberalism. So, when Monbiot's rhetoric rises:
"So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming frenzy
of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces
is unbearable pain?"
the answer is, of course, 'western capitalist elites'.
We stand together or we fall apart.
Hackneyed and unoriginal but still true for all that.
the answer is, of course, 'western capitalist elites'.
because of the lies that are being sold.
We all want is to: (and feel we have the right to) wear the best clothes,
have the foreign holidays, own the latest tech and eat the finest foods.
At the same time our rights have increased and awareness of our responsibilities
have minimized. The execution of common sense and an awareness that everything
that goes wrong will always be someone else fault.
We are not all special snowflakes, princesses or worthy of special treatment,
but we act like self absorbed, entitled individuals. Whether that's entitled
to benefits, the front of the queue or bumped into first because its our
birthday!
I share Monbiots pain here. But rather than get a sense of perspective
- the answer is often "More public money and counseling"
George Monbiot has struck a nerve.
They are there every day in my small town local park: people, young and
old, gender and ethnically diverse, siting on benches for a couple of hours
at a time.
They have at least one thing in common.
They each sit alone, isolated in their own thoughts..
But many share another bond: they usually respond to dogs, unconditional
in their behaviour patterns towards humankind.
Trite as it may seem, this temporary thread of canine affection breaks the
taboo of strangers
passing by on the other side.
Conversations, sometimes stilted, sometimes deeper and more meaningful,
ensue as dog walkers become a brief daily healing force in a fractured world
of loneliness.
It's not much credit in the bank of sociability.
But it helps.
Trite as it may seem from the outside, their interaction with the myriad
pooches regularly walk
Unhealthy social interaction, yes. You can never judge what is natural to
humans based on contemporary Britain. Anthropologists repeatedly find that
what we think natural is merely a social construct created by the system
we are subject to.
If you don't work hard, you will be a loser, don't look out of the window
day dreaming you lazy slacker. Get productive, Mr Burns millions need you
to work like a machine or be replaced by one.
Good article. You´re absoluately right. And the deeper casue is this: separation
from God. If we don´t fight our way back to God, individually and collectively,
things are going to get a lot worse. With God, loneliness doesn´t exist.
I encourage anyone and everyone to start talking to Him today and invite
Him into your heart and watch what starts to happen.
Religion divides not brings people together. Only when you embrace all humanity
and ignore all gods will you find true happiness. The world and the people
in it are far more inspiring when you contemplate the lack of any gods.
The fact people do amazing things without needing the promise of heaven
or the threat of hell - that is truly moving.
I see what you're saying but I read 'love' instead of God. God is too religious
which separates and divides ("I'm this religion and my god is better than
yours" etc etc). I believe that George is right in many ways in that money
is very powerful on it's impact on our behavior (stress, lack etc) and
therefore our lives. We are becoming fearful of each other and I believe
the insecurity we feel plays a part in this.
We have become so disconnected
from ourselves and focused on battling to stay afloat. Having experienced
periods of severe stress due to lack of money I couldn't even begin to think
about how I felt, how happy I was, what I really wanted to do with my life.
I just had to pay my landlord, pay the bills and try and put some food on
my table so everything else was totally neglected.
When I moved house to
move in with family and wasn't expected to pay rent, though I offered, all
that dissatisfaction and undealt with stuff came spilling out and I realised
I'd had no time for any real safe care above the very basics and that was
not a good place to be. I put myself into therapy for a while and started
to look after myself and things started to change. I hope to never go back
to that kind of position but things are precarious financially and the field
I work in isn't well paid but it makes me very happy which I realise now
is more important.
Neo-liberalism has a lot to answer for in bringing misery to our lives and
accelerating the demise of the planet but I find it not guilty on this one. The current trends as to how people perceive themselves (what you've
got rather than who you are) and the increasing isolation in our cities
started way before the neo-liberals. It is getting worse though and on balance social media is making us more
connected but less social. Share
The way that the left keeps banging on about neoliberalism is half of what
makes them such a tough sell electorally. Just about nobody knows what neoliberalism
is, and literally nobody self identifies as a neoliberal. So all this moaning
and wailing about neoliberalism comes across as a self absorbed, abstract
and irrelevant. I expect there is the germ of an idea in there, but until
the left can find away to present that idea without the baffling layer of
jargon and over-analysis, they're going to remain at a disadvantage to the
easy populism of the right.
Interesting article. We have heard so much about the size of our economy
but less about our quality of life. The UK quality of life is way below
the size of our economy i.e. economy size 6th largest in the world but quality
of life 15th. If we were the 10th largest economy but were 10th for quality
of life we would be better off than we are now in real terms.
We need a
radical change of political thinking to focus on quality of life rather
than obsession with the size of our economy. High levels of immigration
of people who don't really integrate into their local communities has fractured
our country along with the widening gap between rich and poor. Governments
only see people in terms of their "economic value" - hence mothers being
driven out to work, children driven into daycare and the elderly driven
into care homes. Britain is becoming a soulless place - even our great British
comedy is on the decline.
Interesting. 'It is the isolated and marginalised animals that are most
likely to be picked off by predators....' so perhaps the species is developing
its own predators to fill a vacated niche.
(Not questioning the comparison to other mammals at all as I think it
is valid but you would have to consider the whole rather than cherry pick
bits)
Generation snowflake. "I'll do myself in if you take away my tablet and
mobile phone for half an hour".
They don't want to go out and meet people anymore. Nightclubs for instance,
are closing because the younger generation 'don't see the point' of going
out to meet people they would otherwise never meet, because they can meet
people on the internet. Leave them to it and the repercussions of it.....
Socialism is dying on its feet in the UK, hence the Tory's 17 point lead
at the mo. The lefties are clinging to whatever influence they have to sway
the masses instead of the ballot box. Good riddance to them.
17 point lead? Dying on it's feet? The neo-liberals are showing their disconnect
from reality. If anything, neo-liberalism is driving a people to the left
in search of a fairer and more equal society.
George Moniot's articles are better thought out, researched and written
than the vast majority of the usual clickbait opinion pieces found on the
Guardian these days. One of the last journalists, rather than liberal arts
blogger vying for attention.
Neoliberalism's rap sheet is long and dangerous but this toxic philosophy
will continue unabated because most people can't join the dots and work
out how detrimental it has proven to be for most of us.
It dangles a carrot in order to create certain economic illusions but
the simple fact is neoliberal societies become more unequal the longer they
persist.
Neoliberal economies allow people to build huge global businesses very quickly
and will continue to give the winners more but they also can guve everyone
else more too but just at a slower rate. Socialism on the other hand mires
everyone in stagnant poverty. Question is do you want to be absolutely or
relatively better off.
You have no idea. Do not confuse capitalism with neoliberalism. Neoliberalism
is a political ideology based on a mythical version of capitalism that doesn't
actually exist, but is a nice way to get the deluded to vote for something
that doesn't work in their interest at all.
And things will get worse as society falls apart due to globalisation, uberization,
lack of respect for authority, lacks of a fair tax and justice system, crime,
immorality, loss of trust of politicians and financial and corporate sectors,
uncontrolled immigration bringing with it insecurity and the risk of terrorism
and a dumbing down of society with increasing inequality. All this is in
a new book " The World at a Crossroads" which deals with the major issues
facing the planet.
What, like endless war, unaffordable property, monstrous university fees,
zero hours contracts and a food bank on every corner, and that's before
we even get to the explosion in mental distress.
There's nothing spurious or obscure about Neoliberalism. It is simply the
political ideology of the rich, which has been our uninterrupted governing
ideology since Reagan and Thatcher: Privatisation, deregulation, 'liberalisation'
of housing, labour, etc, trickledown / low-tax-on-the-rich economics, de-unionization.
You only don't see it if you don't want to see it.
I'm just thinking what is wonderful about societies that are big of social
unity. And conformity.
Those societies for example where you "belong" to your family. Where
teenage girls can be married off to elderly uncles to cement that belonging.
Or those societies where the belonging comes through religious centres.
Where the ostracism for "deviant" behaviour like being gay or for women
not submitting to their husbands can be brutal. And I'm not just talking
about muslims here.
Or those societies that are big on patriotism. Yep they are usually good
for mental health as the young men are given lessons in how to kill as many
other men as possible efficiently.
And then I have to think how our years of "neo-liberal" governments have
taken ideas of social liberalisation and enshrined them in law. It may be
coincidence but thirty years after Thatcher and Reagan we are far more tolerant
of homosexuality and willing to give it space to live, conversely we are
far less tolerant of racism and are willing to prosecute racist violence.
Feminists may still moan about equality but the position of women in society
has never been better, rape inside marriage has (finally) been outlawed,
sexual violence generally is no longer condoned except by a few, work opportunities
have been widened and the woman's role is no longer just home and family.
At least that is the case in "neo-liberal" societies, it isn't necessarily
the case in other societies.
So unless you think loneliness is some weird Stockholm Syndrome thing
where your sense of belonging comes from your acceptance of a stifling role
in a structured soiety, then I think blaming the heightened respect for
the individual that liberal societies have for loneliness is way off the
mark.
What strikes me about the cases you cite above, George, is not an over-respect
for the individual but another example of individuals being shoe-horned
into a structure. It strikes me it is not individualism but competition
that is causing the unhappiness. Competition to achieve an impossible ideal.
I fear George, that you are not approaching this with a properly open
mind dedicated to investigation. I think you have your conclusion and you
are going to bend the evidence to fit. That is wrong and I for one will
not support that. In recent weeks and months we have had the "woe, woe and
thrice woe" writings. Now we need to take a hard look at our findings. We
need to take out the biases resulting from greater awareness of mental health
and better and fuller diagnosis of mental health issues. We need to balance
the bias resulting from the fact we really only have hard data for modern
Western societies. And above all we need to scotch any bias resulting from
the political worldview of the researchers.
It sounded to me that he was telling us of farm labouring and factory fodder
stock that if we'd 'known our place' and kept to it ,all would be well because
in his ideal society there WILL be or end up having a hierarchy, its inevitable.
Wasn't all this started by someone who said, "There is no such thing as
Society"? The ultimate irony is that the ideology that championed the individual
and did so much to dismantle the industrial and social fabric of the Country
has resulted in a system which is almost totalitarian in its disregard for
its ideological consequences.
Thatcher said it in the sense that society is not abstract it is just other
people so when you say society needs to change then people need to change
as society is not some independent concept it is an aggregation of all us.
The left mis quote this all the time and either they don't get it or they
are doing on purpose.
No, Neoliberalism has been around since 1938.... Thatcher was only responsible
for "letting it go" in Britain in 1980, but actually it was already racing
ahead around the world.
Furthermore, it could easily be argued that the Beatles helped create
loneliness - what do you think all those girls were screaming for? And also
it could be argued that the Beatles were bringing in neoliberalism in the
1960s, via America thanks to Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis etc.. Share
Great article, although surely you could've extended the blame to capitalism
has a whole?
In what, then, consists the alienation of labor? First, in the fact
that labor is external to the worker, i.e., that it does not belong
to his nature, that therefore he does not realize himself in his work,
that he denies himself in it, that he does not feel at ease in it, but
rather unhappy, that he does not develop any free physical or mental
energy, but rather mortifies his flesh and ruins his spirit. The worker,
therefore, is only himself when he does not work, and in his work he
feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and
when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor, therefore, is
not voluntary, but forced--forced labor. It is not the gratification
of a need, but only a means to gratify needs outside itself. Its alien
nature shows itself clearly by the fact that work is shunned like the
plague as soon as no physical or other kind of coercion exists.
Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
We have created a society with both flaws and highlights- and we have unwittingly
allowed the economic system to extend into our lives in negative ways.
On of the things being modern brings is movement- we move away from communities,
breaking friendships and losing support networks, and the support networks
are the ones that allow us to cope with issues, problems and anxiety.
Isolation among the youth is disturbing, it is also un natural, perhaps
it is social media, or fear of parents, or the fall in extra school activities
or parents simply not having a network of friends because they have had
to move for work or housing.
There is some upsides, I talk and get support from different international
communities through the social media that can also be so harmful- I chat
on xbox games, exchange information on green building forums, arts forums,
share on youtube as well as be part of online communities that hold events
in the real world.
Increasingly we seem to need to document our lives on social media to somehow
prove we 'exist'. We seem far more narcissistic these days, which tends
to create a particular type of unhappiness, or at least desire that can
never be fulfilled. Maybe that's the secret of modern consumer-based capitalism.
To be happy today, it probably helps to be shallow, or avoid things like
Twitter and Facebook!
Eric Fromm made similar arguments to Monbiot about the psychological
impact of modern capitalism (Fear of Freedom and The Sane Society) - although
the Freudian element is a tad outdated. However, for all the faults of modern
society, I'd rather be unhappy now than in say, Victorian England. Similarly,
life in the West is preferable to the obvious alternatives.
Thanks George for commenting in such a public way on the unsayable: consume,
consume, consume seems to be the order of the day in our modern world and
the points you have highlighted should be part of public policy everywhere.
I'm old enough to remember when we had more time for each other; when
mothers could be full-time housewives; when evenings existed (evenings now
seem to be spent working or getting home from work). We are undoubtedly
more materialistic, which leads to more time spent working, although our
modern problems are probably not due to increasing materialism alone.
Regarding divorce and separation, I notice people in my wider circle
who are very open to affairs. They seem to lack the self-discipline to concentrate
on problems in their marriage and to give their full-time partner a high
level of devotion. Terrible problems come up in marriages but if you are
completely and unconditionally committed to your partner and your marriage
then you can get through the majority of them.
Aggressive self interest is turning in on itself. Unfortunately the powerful
who have realised their 'Will to Power' are corrupted by their own inflated
sense of self and thus blinded. Does this all predict a global violent revolution?
However, what is most interesting is how nearly all modern politicians
who peddle neoliberal doctrine or policy, refuse to use the name, or even
to openly state what ideology they are in fact following.
I suppose it is just a complete coincidence that the policy so many governments
are now following so closely follow known neoliberal doctrine. But of course
the clever and unpleasant strategy of those like yourself is to cry conspiracy
theory if this ideology, which dare not speak its name is mentioned.
Your style is tiresome. You make no specific supported criticisms again,
and again. You just make false assertions and engage in unpleasant ad homs
and attempted character assassination. You do not address the evidence for
what George Monbiot states at all.
An excellent article. One wonders exactly what one needs to say in order
to penetrate the reptilian skulls of those who run the system.
As an addition to Mr Monbiot's points, I would like to point out that
it is not only competitive self-interest and extreme individualism that
drives loneliness. Any system that has strict hierarchies and mechanisms
of social inclusion also drives it, because such systems inhibit strongly
spontaneous social interaction, in which people simply strike up conversation.
Thailand has such a system. Despite her promoting herself as the land of
smiles, I have found the people here to be deeply segregated and unfriendly.
I have lived here for 17 years. The last time I had a satisfactory face-to-face
conversation, one that went beyond saying hello to cashiers at checkout
counters or conducting official business, was in 1999. I have survived by
convincing myself that I have dialogues with my books; as I delve more deeply
into the texts, the authors say something different to me, to which I can
then respond in my mind.
Epidemics of mental illness are crushing the minds and bodies of
millions. It's time to ask where we are heading and why
I want to quote the sub headline, because "It's time to ask where we are
heading and why", is the important bit. George's excellent and scathing
evidence based criticism of the consequences of neoliberalism is on the
nail. However, we need to ask how we got to this stage. Despite it's name
neoliberalism doesn't really seem to contain any new ideas, and in some
way it's more about Thatcher's beloved return to Victorian values. Most
of what George Monbiot highlights encapsulatec Victorian thinking, the sort
of workhouse mentality.
Whilst it's very important to understand how neoliberalism, the ideology
that dare not speak it's name, derailed the general progress in the developed
world. It's also necessary to understand that the roots this problem go
much further back. Not merely to the start of the industrial revolution,
but way beyond that. It actually began with the first civilizations when
our societies were taken over by powerful rulers, and they essentially started
to farm the people they ruled like cattle. On the one hand they declared
themselves protector of their people, whilst ruthlessly exploiting them
for their own political gain. I use the livestock farming analogy, because
that explains what is going on.
To domesticate livestock, and to make them pliable and easy to work with
the farmer must make himself appear to these herd animals as if they are
their protector, the person who cares for them, nourishes and feeds them.
They become reliant on their apparent benefactor. Except of course this
is a deceitful relationship, because the farmer is just fattening them up
to be eaten.
For the powerful to exploit the rest of people in society for their own
benefit they had to learn how to conceal what they were really doing, and
to wrap it in justifications to bamboozle the people they were exploiting
for their own benefit. They did this by altering our language and inserting
ideas in our culture which justified their rule, and the positions of the
rest of us.
Before state religions, generally what was revered was the Earth, the
natural world. It was on a personal level, and not controlled by the powerful.
So the powerful needed to remove that personal meaningfulness from people's
lives, and said the only thing which was really meaningful, was the religion,
which of course they controlled and were usually the head of. Over generations
people were indoctrinated in a completely new way of thinking, and a language
manipulated so all people could see was the supposed divine right of kings
to rule. Through this language people were detached from what was personally
meaningful to them, and could only find meaningfulness by pleasing their
rulers, and being indoctrinated in their religion.
If you control the language people use, you can control how perceive
the world, and can express themselves.
By stripping language of meaningful terms which people can express themselves,
and filling it full of dubious concepts such as god, the right of kings
completely altered how people saw the world, how they thought. This is why
over the ages, and in different forms the powerful have always attempted
to have full control of our language through at first religion and their
proclamations, and then eventually by them controlling our education system
and the media.
The idea of language being used to control how people see the world,
and how they think is of course not my idea. George Orwell's Newspeak idea
explored in "1984" is very much about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
This control of language is well known throughout history. Often conquerors
would abolish languages of those they conquered. In the so called New World
the colonists eventually tried to control how indigenous people thought
by forcibly sending their children to boarding school, to be stripped of
their culture, their native language, and to be inculcated in the language
and ideas of their colonists. In Britain various attempts were made to banish
the Welsh language, the native language of the Britons, before the Anglo-Saxons
and the Normans took over.
However, what Orwell did not deal with properly is the origin of language
style. To Orwell, and to critics of neoliberalism, the problems can be traced
back to the rise of what they criticised. To a sort of mythical golden age.
Except all the roots of what is being criticised can be found in the period
before the invention of these doctrines. So you have to go right back to
the beginning, to understand how it all began.
Neoliberalism would never have been possible without this long control
of our language and ideas by the powerful. It prevents us thinking outside
the box, about what the problem really is, and how it all began.
All very well but you are talking about ruthlessness of western elites,
mostly British, not all.
It was not like that everywhere. Take Poland for example, and around
there..
New research is emerging - and I'd recommend reading of prof Frost from
St Andrew's Uni - that lower classes were actually treated with respect
by elites there, mainly land owners and aristocracy who more looked after
them and employed and cases of such ruthlessness as you describe were unknown
of.
So that 'truth' about attitudes to lower classes is not universal!
It's spouted by many on here as the root of all evil.
I'd be interested to see how many different definitions I get in
response...
The reason I call neoliberalism the ideology which dare not speak it's name
is that in public you will rarely hear it mentioned by it's proponents.
However, it was a very important part of Thatcherism, Blairism, and so on.
What is most definite is that these politicians and others are most definitely
following some doctrine. Their ideas about what we must do and how we must
do it are arbitrary, but they make it sound as if it's the only way to do
things.
However, as I hint, the main problem in dealing with neoliberalism is
that none of the proponents of this doctrine admit to what ideology they
are actually following. Yet very clearly around the world leaders in many
countries are clearly singing from the same hymn sheet because the policy
they implement is so similar. Something has definitely changed. All the
attempts to roll back welfare, benefits, and public services is most definitely
new, or they wouldn't be having to reverse policy of the past if nothing
had change. But as all these politicians implementing this policy all seem
to refuse to explain what doctrine they are following, it makes it difficult
to pin down what is happening. Yet we can most definitely say that there
is a clear doctrine at work, because why else would so many political leaders
around the world be trying to implement such similar policy.
Neo-liberalism doesn't really exist except in the minds of the far
left and perhaps a few academics.
Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that
transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public
sector. ... Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic
development.
I believe the term 'Neo liberalism' was coined by those well known 'Lefties'The
Chicago School .
If you don't believe that any of the above has been happening ,it does beg
the question as to where you have been for the past decade.
The ironies of modern civilization - we have never been more 'connected'
to other people on global level and less 'connected' on personal level.
We have never had access to such a wide range of information and opinions,
but also for a long time been so divided into conflicting groups, reading
and accessing in fact only that which reinforces what we already think.
Sir Harry Burns, ex-Chief Medical Officer in Scotland talks very powerfully
about the impact of loneliness and isolation on physical and mental health
- here is a video of a recent talk by him -
http://www.befs.org.uk/calendar/48/164-BEFS-Annual-Lecture
These issues have been a long time coming, just think of the appeals of
the 60's to chill out and love everyone. Globalisation and neo-liberalism
has simply made society even more broken.
The way these problems have been ignored and made worse over the last few
decades make me think that the solution will only happen after a massive
catastrophe and society has to be rebuilt. Unless we make the same mistakes
again.
A shame really, you would think intelligence would be useful but it seems
not.
I would argue that it creates a bubble of existence for those who pursue
a path of "success" that instead turns to isolation . The amount of people
that I have met who have moved to London because to them it represents the
main location for everything . I get to see so many walking cliches of people
trying to fit in or stand out but also fitting in just the same .
The real disconnect that software is providing us with is truly staggering
. I have spoken to people from all over the World who seem to feel more
at home being alone and playing a game with strangers . The ones who are
most happy are those who seem to be living all aloe and the ones who try
and play while a girlfriend or family are present always seemed to be the
ones most agitated by them .
We are humans relying on simplistic algorithms that reduce us ,apps like
Tinder which turns us into a misogynist at the click of a button .
Facebook which highlights our connections with the other people and assumes
that everyone you know or have met is of the same relevance .
We also have Twitter which is the equivalent of screaming at a television
when you are drunk or angry .
We have Instagram where people revel in their own isolation and send
updates of it . All those products that are instantly updated and yet we
are ageing and always feeling like we are grouped together by simple algorithms
.
Television has been the main destroyer of social bonds since the 1950s and
yet it is only mentioned once and in relation to the number of competitions
on it, which completely misses the point. That's when I stopped taking this
article seriously.
I actually blame Marx for neoliberalism. He framed society purely in terms
economic, and persuaded that ideology is valuable in as much as it is actionable.
For a dialectician he was incredibly short sighted and superficial, not
realising he was creating a narrative inimical to personal expression and
simple thoughtfulness (although he was warned). To be fair, he can't have
appreciated how profoundly he would change the way we concieve societies.
Neoliberalism is simply the dark side of Marxism and subsumes the personal
just as comprehensively as communism.
We're picked apart by quantification and live as particulars, suffering
the ubiquitous consequences of connectivity alone . . .
Unless, of course, you get out there and meet great people!
Neo-liberalism allows psychopaths to flourish, and it has been argued by
Robert Hare that they are disproportionately represented in the highest
echelons of society. So people who lack empathy and emotional attachment
are probably weilding a significant amount of influence over the way our
economy and society is organised. Is it any wonder that they advocate an
economic model which is most conducive to their success? Things like job
security, rigged markets, unions, and higher taxes on the rich simply get
in their way.
That fine illustration by Andrzej Krauze up there is exactly what I see
whenever I walk into an upscale mall or any Temple of Consumerism.
You can hear the Temple calling out: "Feel bad, atomized individuals?
Have a hole inside? Feel lonely? That's all right: buy some shit you don't
need and I guarantee you'll feel better."
And then it says: "So you bought it and you felt better for five minutes,
and now you feel bad again? Well, that's not rocket science...you should
buy MORE shit you don't need! I mean, it's not rocket science, you should
have figured this out on your own."
And then it says: "Still feel bad and you have run out of money? Well,
that's okay, just get it on credit, or take out a loan, or mortgage your
house. I mean, it's not rocket science. Really, you should have figured
this out on your own already...I thought you were a modern, go-get-'em,
independent, initiative-seizing citizen of the world?"
And then it says: "Took out too many loans, can't pay the bills and
the repossession has begun? Honestly, that's not my problem. You're just
a bad little consumer, and a bad little liberal, and everything is your
own fault. You go sit in a dark corner now where you don't bother the other
shoppers. Honestly, you're just being a burden on other consumers now. I'm
not saying you should kill yourself, but I can't say that we would mind
either."
And that's how the worms turn at the Temples of Consumerism and Neoliberalism.
I kept my sanity by not becoming a spineless obedient middle class pleaser
of a sociopathic greedy tribe pretending neoliberalism is the future.
The result is a great clarity about the game, and an intact empathy for
all beings.
The middle class treated each conscious "outsider" like a lowlife,
and now they play the helpless victims of circumstances.
I know why I renounced to my privileges.
They sleepwalk into their self created disorder.
And yes, I am very angry at those who wasted decades with their social stupidity,
those who crawled back after a start of change into their petit bourgeois
niche.
I knew that each therapist has to take a stand and that the most choose
petty careers.
Do not expect much sanity from them for your disorientated kids.
Get insightful yourself and share your leftover love to them.
Try honesty and having guts...that might help both of you.
Alternatively, neo-liberalism has enabled us to afford to live alone (entire
families were forced to live together for economic reasons), and technology
enables us to work remotely, with no need for interaction with other people.
This may make some people feel lonely, but for many others its utopia.
Some of the things that characterise Globalisation and Neoliberalism are
open borders and free movement. How can that contribute to isolation? That
is more likely to be fostered by Protectionism.
And there aren't fewer jobs. Employment is at record highs here and in many
other countries. There are different jobs, not fewer, and to be sure there
are some demographics that have lost out. But overall there are not fewer
jobs. That falls for the old "lump of labour" fallacy.
The corrosive state of mass television indoctrination sums it up: Apprentice,
Big Brother, Dragon's Den. By degrees, the standard keeps lowering. It is
no longer unusual for a licence funded TV programme to consist of a group
of the mentally deranged competing to be the biggest asshole in the room.
Anomie is a by-product of cultural decline as much as economics.
Our whole culture is more stressful. Jobs are more precarious; employment
rights more stacked in favor of the employer; workforces are deunionised;
leisure time is on the decrease; rents are unaffordable; a house is no longer
a realistic expectation for millions of young people. Overall, citizens
are more socially immobile and working harder for poorer real wages than
they were in the late 70's.
Unfortunately, sexual abuse has always been a feature of human societies.
However there is no evidence to suggest it was any worse in the past. Then
sexual abuse largely took place in institutional settings were at least
it could be potentially addressed. Now much of it has migrated to the great
neoliberal experiment of the internet, where child exploitation is at endemic
levels and completely beyond the control of law enforcement agencies. There
are now more women and children being sexually trafficked than there were
slaves at the height of the slave trade. Moreover, we should not forget
that Jimmy Saville was abusing prolifically right into the noughties.
My parents were both born in 1948. They say it was great. They bought
a South London house for next to nothing and never had to worry about getting
a job. When they did get a job it was one with rights, a promise of a generous
pension, a humane workplace environment, lunch breaks and an ethos of public
service. My mum says that the way women are talked about now is worse.
Sounds fine to me. That's not to say everything was great: racism was
acceptable (though surely the vile views pumped out onto social media are
as bad or worse than anything that existed then), homosexuality was illegal
and capital punishment enforced until the 1960's. However, the fact that
these things were reformed showed society was moving in the right direction.
Now we are going backwards, back to 1930's levels or inequality and a reactionary,
small-minded political culture fueled by loneliness, rage and misery.
And there is little evidence to suggest that anyone has expanded their mind
with the internet. A lot of people use it to look at porn, post racist tirades
on Facebook, send rape threats, distributes sexual images of partners with
their permission, take endless photographs of themselves and whip up support
for demagogues. In my view it would much better if people went to a library
than lurked in corporate echo chambers pumping out the like of 'why dont
theese imagrantz go back home and all those lezbo fems can fuckk off too
ha ha megalolz ;). Seriously mind expanding stuff. Share
As a director and CEO of an organisation employing several hundred people
I became aware that 40% of the staff lived alone and that the workplace
was important to them not only for work but also for interacting with their
colleagues socially . This was encouraged and the organisation achieved
an excellent record in retaining staff at a time when recruitment was difficult.
Performance levels were also extremely high . I particulalry remember with
gratitude the solidarity of staff when one of our colleagues - a haemophiliac
- contracted aids through an infected blood transfusion and died bravely
but painfully - the staff all supported him in every way possible through
his ordeal and it was a privilege for me to work with such kind and caring
people .
Indeed. Those communities are often undervalued. However, the problem is,
as George says, lots of people are excluded from them.
They are also highly self-selecting (e.g. you need certain trains of
inclusivity, social adeptness, empathy, communication, education etc to
get the job that allows you to join that community).
Certainly I make it a priority in my life. I do create communities. I
do make an effort to stand by people who live like me. I can be a leader
there.
Sometimes I wish more people would be. It is a sustained, long-term effort.
Share
To add to this discussion, we might consider the strongest need and conflict
each of us experiences as a teenager, the need to be part of a tribe vs
the the conflict inherent in recognising one's uniqueness. In a child's
life from about 7 or 8 until adolescence, friends matter the most. Then
the young person realises his or her difference from everyone else and has
to grasp what this means.
Those of us who enjoyed a reasonably healthy upbringing will get through
the peer group / individuation stage with happiness possible either way
- alone or in friendship. Our parents and teachers will have fostered a
pride in our own talents and our choice of where to socialise will be flexible
and non-destructive.
Those of us who at some stage missed that kind of warmth and acceptance
in childhood can easily stagnate. Possibly this is the most awkward of personal
developmental leaps. The person neither knows nor feels comfortable with
themselves, all that faces them is an abyss.
Where creative purpose and strength of spirit are lacking, other humans
can instinctively sense it and some recoil from it, hardly knowing what
it's about. Vulnerabilities attendant on this state include relationships
holding out some kind of ersatz rescue, including those offered by superficial
therapists, religions, and drugs, legal and illegal.
Experience taught that apart from the work we might do with someone deeply
compassionate helping us where our parents failed, the natural world
is a reliable healer. A kind of self-acceptance and individuation is
possible away from human bustle. One effect of the seasons and of being
outdoors amongst other life forms is to challenge us physically, into present
time, where our senses start to work acutely and our observational skills
get honed, becoming more vibrant than they could at any educational establishment.
This is one reason we have to look after the Earth, whether it's in a
city context or a rural one. Our mental, emotional and physical health is
known to be directly affected by it.
A thoughtful article. But the rich and powerful will ignore it; their doing
very well out of neo liberalism thank you. Meanwhile many of those whose
lives are affected by it don't want to know - they're happy with their bigger
TV screen. Which of course is what the neoliberals want, 'keep the people
happy and in the dark'. An old Roman tactic - when things weren't
going too well for citizens and they were grumbling the leaders just
extended the 'games'. Evidently it did the trick
The rich and powerful can be just as lonely as you and me. However, some
of them will be lonely after having royally forked the rest of us over...and
that is another thing
- Fight Club
People need a tribe to feel purpose. We need conflict, it's essential for
our species... psychological health improved in New York after 9/11.
Totally agree with the last sentences. Human civilisation is a team effort.
Individual humans cant survive, our language evolved to aid cooperation.
Neo-liberalism is really only an Anglo-American project. Yet we are so
indoctrinated in it, It seems natural to us, but not to hardly any other
cultures.
As for those "secondary factors. Look to advertising and the loss of
real jobs forcing more of us to sell services dependent on fake needs. Share
It's importance for social cohesion -- yes inspite of the problems , can
not be overestimated .Don't let the rich drive it out , people who don't
understand ,or care what it's for .The poorer boroughs cannot afford it
.K&C have easily 1/2billion in Capital Reserves ,so yes they must continue
. Here I can assure you ,one often sees the old and lonely get a hug .If
drug gangs are hitting each other or their rich boy customers with violence
- that is a different matter . And yes of course if we don't do something
to help boys from ethnic minorities ,with education and housing -of course
it only becomes more expensive in the long run.
Boris Johnson has idiotically mouthed off about trying to mobilise people
to stand outside the Russian Embassy , as if one can mobilise youth by telling
them to tidy their bedroom .Because that's all it amounts to - because you
have to FEEL protest and dissent . Well here at Carnival - there it is ,protest
and dissent . Now listen to it . And of course it will be far easier than
getting any response from sticking your tongue out at the Putin monster --
He has his bombs , just as Kensington and Chelsea have their money.
(and anyway it's only another Boris diversion ,like building some fucking
stupid bridge ,instead of doing anything useful)
"Society" or at least organized society is the enemy of corporate power.
The idea of Neoliberal capitalism is to replace civil society with corporate
law and rule. The same was true of the less extreme forms of capitalism.
Society is the enemy of capital because it put restrictions on it and threatens
its power.
When society organizes itself and makes laws to protect society from
the harmful effects of capitalism, for example demands on testing drugs
to be sure they are safe, this is a big expense to Pfizer, there are many
examples - just now in the news banning sugary drinks. If so much as a small
group of parents forming a day care co-op decide to ban coca cola from their
group that is a loss of profit.
That is really what is going on, loneliness is a big part of human life,
everyone feels it sometimes, under Neoliberal capitalism it is simply more
exaggerated due to the out and out assault on society itself.
Well the prevailing Global Capitalist world view is still a combination
1. homocentric Cartesian Dualism i.e. seeing humans as most important and
sod all other living beings, and seeing humans as separate from all other
living beings and other humans and 2. Darwinian "survival of the fittest"
seeing everything as a competition and people as "winners and losers, weak
or strong with winners and the strong being most important". From these
2 combined views all kinds of "games" arise. The main one being the game
of "victim, rescuer, persecutor" (Transactional Analysis). The Guardian
engages in this most of the time and although I welcome the truth in this
article to some degree, surprisingly, as George is environmentally friendly,
it kinda still is talking as if humans are most important and as if those
in control (the winners) need to change their world view to save the victims.
I think the world view needs to zoom out to a perspective that recognises
that everything is interdependent and that the apparent winners and the
strong are as much victims of their limited world view as those who are
manifesting the effects of it more obviously.
Here in America, we have reached the point at which police routinely dispatch
the mentally ill, while complaining that "we don't have the time for this"
(N. Carolina). When a policeman refuses to kill a troubled citizen, he or
she can and will be fired from his job (West Virginia). This has become
not merely commonplace, but actually a part of the social function of the
work of the police -- to remove from society the burden of caring for the
mentally ill by killing them. In the state where I live, a state trooper
shot dead a mentally ill man who was not only unarmed, but sitting on the
toilet in his own home. The resulting "investigation" exculpated the trooper,
of course; in fact, young people are constantly told to look up to the police.
Sounds like the inevitable logical outcome of a society where the predator
sociopathic and their scared prey are all that is allowed.
This dynamic dualistic tautology, the slavish terrorised to sleep and bullying
narcissistic individual, will always join together to protect their sick
worldview by pathologising anything that will threaten their hegemony of
power abuse: compassion, sensitivity, moral conscience, altruism and the
immediate effects of the ruthless social effacement or punishment of the
same ie human suffering.
The impact of increasing alienation on individual mental health has been
known about and discussed for a long time.
When looking at a way forward, the following article is interesting:
"Alienation, in all areas, has reached unprecedented heights; the social
machinery for deluding consciousnesses in the interest of the ruling class
has been perfected as never before. The media are loaded with upscale advertising
identifying sophistication with speciousness. Television, in constant use,
obliterates the concept under the image and permanently feeds a baseless
credulity for events and history. Against the will of many students, school
doesn't develop the highly cultivated critical capacities that a real sovereignty
of the people would require. And so on.
The ordinary citizen thus lives
in an incredibly deceiving reality. Perhaps this explains the tremendous
and persistent gap between the burgeoning of motives to struggle, and the
paucity of actual combatants. The contrary would be a miracle. Thus the
considerable importance of what I call the struggle for representation:
at every moment, in every area, to expose the deception and bring to light,
in the simplicity of form which only real theoretical penetration makes
possible, the processes in which the false-appearances, real and imagined,
originate, and this way, to form the vigilant consciousness, placing our
image of reality back on its feet and reopening paths to action."
For the global epidemic of abusive, effacing homogenisation of human intellectual
exchange and violent hyper-sexualisation of all culture, I blame the US
Freudian PR guru Edward Bernays and his puritan forebears - alot.
Thanks for proving that Anomie is a far more sensible theory than Dialectical
Materialistic claptrap that was used back in the 80s to terrorize the millions
of serfs living under the Jack boot of Leninist Iron curtain.
There's no question - neoliberalism has been wrenching society apart.
It's not as if the prime movers of this ideology were unaware of the likely
outcome viz. "there is no such thing as society" (Thatcher). Actually in
retrospect the whole zeitgeist from the late 70s emphasised the atomised
individual separated from the whole. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (1976)
may have been influential in creating that climate.
Anyway, the wheel has turned thank goodness. We are becoming wiser and
understanding that "ecology" doesn't just refer to our relationship with
the natural world but also, closer to home, our relationship with each other.
The Communist manifesto makes the same complaint in 1848. The wheel has
not turned, it is still grinding down workers after 150 years. We are none
the wiser.
"The wheel is turning and you can't slow down,
You can't let go and you can't hold on,
You can't go back and you can't stand still,
If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will."
R Hunter
What is loneliness? I love my own company and I love walking in nature and
listening to relaxation music off you tube and reading books from the library.
That is all free. When I fancied a change of scene, I volunteered at my
local art gallery.
Mental health issues are not all down to loneliness. Indeed, other people
can be a massive stress factor, whether it is a narcissistic parent, a bullying
spouse or sibling, or an unreasonable boss at work.
I'm on the internet far too much and often feel the need to detox from
it and get back to a more natural life, away from technology. The 24/7 news
culture and selfie obsessed society is a lot to blame for social disconnect.
The current economic climate is also to blame, if housing and job security
are a problem for individuals as money worries are a huge factor of stress.
The idea of not having any goal for the future can trigger depressive thoughts.
I have to say, I've been happier since I don't have such unrealistic
expectations of what 'success is'. I rarely get that foreign holiday or
new wardrobe of clothes and my mobile phone is archaic. The pressure that
society puts on us to have all these things- and get in debt for them is
not good. The obsession with economic growth at all costs is also stupid,
as the numbers don't necessarily mean better wealth, health or happiness.
Very fine article, as usual from George, until right at the end he says:
This does not require a policy response.
But it does. It requires abandonment of neoliberalism as the means used
to run the world. People talk about the dangers of man made computers usurping
their makers but mankind has, it seems, already allowed itself to become
enslaved. This has not been achieved by physical dependence upon machines
but by intellectual enslavement to an ideology.
A very good "Opinion" by George Monbiot one of the best I have seen on this
Guardian blog page.
I would add that the basic concepts of the Neoliberal New world order are
fundamentally Evil, from the control of world population through supporting
of strife starvation and war to financial inducements of persons in positions
of power. Let us not forget the training of our younger members of our society
who have been induced to a slavish love of technology. Many other areas
of human life are also under attack from the Neoliberal, even the very air
we breathe, and the earth we stand upon.
The Amish have understood for 300 years that technology could have a negative
effect on society and decided to limit its effects. I greatly admire their
approach. Neal Stephenson's recent novel Seveneves coined the term Amistics
for the practice of assessing and limiting the impact of tech. We need a
Minister for Amistics in the government. Wired magazine did two features
on the Amish use of telephones which are quite insightful.
If we go back to 1848, we also find Marx and Engels, in the Communist
Manifesto, complaining about the way that the first free-market capitalism
(the original liberalism) was destroying communities and families by forcing
workers to move to where the factories were being built, and by forcing
women and children into (very) low paid work. 150 years later, after many
generations of this, combined with the destruction of work in the North,
the result is widespread mental illness. But a few people are really rich
now, so that's all right, eh?
Social media is ersatz community. It's like eating grass: filling, but
not nourishing.
Young people are greatly harmed by not being able to see a clear path forward
in the world. For most people, our basic needs are a secure job, somewhere
secure and affordable to live, and a decent social environment in terms
of public services and facilities. Unfortunately, all these things are sliding
further out of reach for young people in the UK, and they know this. Many
already live with insecure housing where their family could have to move
at a month or two's notice.
Our whole economic system needs to be built around providing these basic
securities for people. Neoliberalism = insecure jobs, insecure housing and
poor public services, because these are the end result of its extreme free
market ideology.
I agree with this 100%. Social isolation makes us unhappy. We have a false
sense of what makes us unhappy - that success or wealth will enlighten or
liberate us. What makes us happy is social connection. Good friendships,
good relationships, being part of community that you contribute to. Go to
some of the poorest countries in the world and you may meet happy people
there, tell them about life in rich countries, and say that some people
there are unhappy. They won't believe you. We do need to change our worldview,
because misery is a real problem in many countries.
It is tempting to see the world before Thatcherism, which is what most English
writers mean when they talk about neo-liberalism, as an idyll, but it simply
wasn't.
The great difficulty with capitalism is that while it is in many ways
an amoral doctrine, it goes hand in hand with personal freedom. Socialism
is moral in its concern for the poorest, but then it places limits on personal
freedom and choice. That's the price people pay for the emphasis on community,
rather than the individual.
Close communities can be a bar on personal freedom and have little tolerance
for people who deviate from the norm. In doing that, they can entrench loneliness.
This happened, and to some extent is still happening, in the working
class communities which we typically describe as 'being destroyed by Thatcher'.
It's happening in close-knit Muslim communities now.
I'm not attempting to vindicate Thatcherism, I'm just saying there's
a pay-off with any model of society. George Monbiot's concerns are actually
part of a long tradition - Oliver Goldsmith's Deserted Village (1770) chimes
with his thinking, as does DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover.
The kind of personal freedom that you say goes hand in hand with capitalism
is an illusion for the majority of people. It holds up the prospect of that
kind of freedom, but only a minority get access to it. For most, it is necessary
to submit yourself to a form of being yoked, in terms of the daily grind
which places limits on what you can then do, as the latter depends hugely
on money. The idea that most people are "free" to buy the house they want,
private education, etc., not to mention whether they can afford the many
other things they are told will make them happy, is a very bad joke. Hunter-gatherers
have more real freedom than we do. Share
According to Wiki: 'Neoliberalism refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence
of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.
These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization,
fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government
spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.'
We grow into fear - the stress of exams and their certain meanings; the
lower wages, longer hours, and fewer rights at work; the certainty of debt
with ever greater mortgages; the terror of benefit cuts combined with rent
increases.
If we're forever afraid, we'll cling to whatever life raft presents.
It's a demeaning way to live, but it serves the Market better than having
a free, reasonably paid, secure workforce, broadly educated and properly
housed, with rights.
Insightful analysis... George quite rightly pinpoints the isolating effects of modern society
and technology and the impact on the quality of our relationships. The obvious question is how can we offset these trends and does the government
care enough to do anything about them?
It strikes me that one of the major problems is that [young] people have
been left to their own devices in terms of their consumption of messages
from Social and Mass online Media - analogous to leaving your kids in front
of a video in lieu of a parental care or a babysitter. In traditional society
- the messages provided by Society were filtered by family contact and real
peer interaction - and a clear picture of the limited value of the media
was propogated by teachers and clerics. Now young and older people alike
are left to make their own judgments and we cannot be surprised when they
extract negative messages around body image, wealth and social expectations
and social and sexual norms from these channels. It's inevitable that this
will create a boundary free landscape where insecurity, self-loathing and
ultimately mental illness will prosper.
I'm not a traditionalist in any way but there has to be a role for teachers
and parents in mediating these messages and presenting the context for analysing
what is being said in a healthy way. I think this kind of Personal Esteem
and Life Skills education should be part of the core curriculum in all schools.
Our continued focus on basic academic skills just does not prepare young
people for the real world of judgementalism, superficiality and cliques
and if anything dealing with these issues are core life skills.
We can't reverse the fact that media and modern society is changing but
we can prepare people for the impact which it can have on their lives.
A politician's answer.
X is a problem. Someone else, in your comment it will be teachers that have
to sort it out. Problems in society are not solved by having a one hour
a week class on "self esteem". In fact self-esteem and self-worth comes
from the things you do. Taking kids away from their academic/cultural studies
reduces this. This is a problem in society. What can society as a
whole do to solve it and what are YOU prepared to contribute.
Rather difficult to do when their parents are Thatchers children and buy
into the whole celebrity, you are what you own lifestyle too....and teachers
are far too busy filling out all the paperwork that shows they've met their
targets to find time to teach a person centred course on self-esteem to
a class of 30 teenagers.
I think we should just continue to be selfish and self-serving, sneering
and despising anyone less fortunate than ourselves, look up to and try to
emulate the shallow, vacuous lifestyle of the non-entity celebrity, consume
the Earth's natural resources whilst poisoning the planet and the people,
destroy any non-contributing indigenous peoples and finally set off all
our nuclear arsenals in a smug-faced global firework display to demonstrate
our high level of intelligence and humanity. Surely, that's what we all
want? Who cares? So let's just carry on with business as usual!
Neoliberalism is the bastard child of globalization which in effect is Americanization.
The basic premise is the individual is totally reliant on the corporate
world state aided by a process of fear inducing mechanisms, pharmacology
is one of the tools.
No community no creativity no free thinking. Poded sealed and cling filmed
a quasi existence.
Having grown up during the Thatcher years, I entirely agree that neoliberalism
has divided society by promoting individual self-optimisation at the expensive
of everyone else.
What's the solution? Well if neoliberalism is the root cause, we need
a systematic change, which is a problem considering there is no alternative
right now. We can however, get active in rebuilding communities and I am
encouraged by George Monbiot's work here.
My approach is to get out and join organizations working toward system
change. 350.org is a good example. Get involved.
we live in a narcissistic and ego driven world that dehumanises everyone.
we have an individual and collective crisis of the soul. it is our false
perception of ourselves that creates a disconnection from who we really
are that causes loneliness.
I agree. This article explains why it is a perfectly normal reaction to
the world we are currently living in. It goes as far as to suggest that
if you do not feel depressed at the state of our world there's something
wrong with you ;-) http://upliftconnect.com/mutiny-of-the-soul/
Surely there is a more straightforward possible explanation for increasing
incidence of "unhapiness"?
Quite simply, a century of gradually increasing general living standards
in the West have lifted the masses up Maslows higiene hierarchy of needs,
to where the masses now have largely only the unfulfilled self esteem needs
that used to be the preserve of a small, middle class minority (rather than
the unfulfilled survival, security and social needs of previous generations)
If so - this is good. This is progress. We just need to get them up another
rung to self fulfillment (the current concern of the flourishing upper middle
classes).
Maslow's hierarchy of needs was not about material goods. One could be poor
and still fulfill all his criteria and be fully realised. You have missed
the point entirely.
Error.... Who mentioned material goods? I think you have not so much "missed
the point" as "made your own one up" .
And while agreed that you could, in theory, be poor and meet all of your
needs (in fact the very point of the analysis is that money, of itself,
isn't what people "need") the reality of the structure of a western capitalist
society means that a certain level of affluence is almost certainly a prerequisite
for meeting most of those needs simply because food and shelter at the bottom
end and, say, education and training at the top end of self fulfillment
all have to be purchased. Share
Also note that just because a majority of people are now so far up the
hierarchy
does in no way negate an argument that corporations haven't also noticed
this and target advertising appropriately to exploit it (and maybe we need
to talk about that)
It just means that it's lazy thinking to presume we are in some way "sliding
backwards" socially, rather than needing to just keep pushing through this
adversity through to the summit.
I have to admit it does really stick in my craw a bit hearing millenials
moan about how they may never get to *own* a really *nice* house while their
grandparents are still alive who didn't even get the right to finish school
and had to share a bed with their siblings.
There is no such thing as a free-market society. Your society of 'self-interest'
is really a state supported oligarchy. If you really want to live in a society
where there is literally no state and a more or less open market try Somalia
or a Latin American city run by drug lords - but even then there are hierarchies,
state involvement, militias.
What you are arguing for is a system (for that is what it is) that demands
everyone compete with one another. It is not free, or liberal, or democratic,
or libertarian. It is designed to oppress, control, exploit and degrade
human beings. This kind of corporatism in which everyone is supposed to
serve the God of the market is, ironically, quite Stalinist. Furthermore,
a society in which people are encouraged to be narrowly selfish is just
plain uncivilized. Since when have sociopathy and barbarism been something
to aspire to?
George, you are right, of course. The burning question, however, is not
'Is our current social set-up making us ill' (it certainly is), but 'Is
there a healthier alternative?' What form of society would make us less
ill? Socialism and egalatarianism, wherever they are tried, tend to lead
to their own set of mental-illness-inducing problems, chiefly to do with
thwarted opportunity, inability to thrive, and constraints on individual
freedom. The sharing, caring society is no more the answer than the brutally
individualistic one. You may argue that what is needed is a balance between
the two, but that is broadly what we have already. It ain't perfect, but
it's a lot better than any of the alternatives.
We certainly do NOT at present have a balance between the two societies...Have
you not read the article? Corporations and big business have far too much
power and control over our lives and our Gov't. The gov't does not legislate
for a real living minimum wage and expects the taxpayer to fund corporations
low wage businesses. The Minimum wage and benefit payments are sucked in
to ever increasing basic living costs leaving nothing for the human soul
aside from more work to keep body and soul together, and all the while the
underlying message being pumped at us is that we are failures if we do not
have wealth and all the accoutrements that go with it....How does that create
a healthy society?
Neoliberalism. A simple word but it does a great deal of work for people
like Monbiot.
The simple statistical data on quality of life differences between generations
is absolutely nowhere to be found in this article, nor are self-reported
findings on whether people today are happier, just as happy or less happy
than people thirty years ago. In reality quality of life and happiness indices
have generally been increasing ever since they were introduced.
It's more difficult to know if things like suicide, depression and mental
illness are actually increasing or whether it's more to do with the fact
that the number of people who are prepared to report them is increasing:
at least some of the rise in their numbers will be down to greater awareness
of said mental illness, government campaigns and a decline in associated
social stigma.
Either way, what evidence there is here isn't even sufficient to establish
that we are going through some vast mental health crisis in the first place,
never mind that said crisis is inextricably bound up with 'neoliberalism'.
Furthermore, I'm inherently suspicious of articles that manage to connect
every modern ill to the author's own political bugbear, especially if they
cherry-pick statistical findings to support their point. I'd be just as,
if not more, suspicious if it was a conservative author trying to link the
same ills to the decline in Christianity or similar. In fact, this article
reminds me very much of the sweeping claims made by right-wingers about
the allegedly destructive effects of secularism/atheism/homosexuality/video
games/South Park/The Great British Bake Off/etc...
If you're an author and you have a pet theory, and upon researching an
article you believe you see a pattern in the evidence that points towards
further confirmation of that theory, then you should step back and think
about whether said pattern is just a bit too psychologically convenient
and ideologically simple to be true. This is why people like Steven Pinker
- properly rigorous, scientifically versed writer-researchers - do the work
they do in systematically sifting through the sociological and historical
data: because your mind is often actively trying to convince you to believe
that neoliberalism causes suicide and depression, or, if you're a similarly
intellectually lazy right-winger, homosexuality leads to gang violence and
the flooding of(bafflingly, overwhelmingly heterosexual) parts of America.
I see no sign that Monbiot is interested in testing his belief in his
central claim and as a result this article is essentially worthless except
as an example of a certain kind of political rhetoric.
social isolation is strongly associated with depression, suicide,
anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat .... Dementia,
high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses,
even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people.
Loneliness has a comparable impact on physical health to smoking
15 cigarettes a day:
it appears to raise the risk of early death by 26%
Why don't we explore some of the benefits?.. Following the long
list of some the diseases, loneliness can inflict on individuals, there
must be a surge in demand for all sort of medications; anti-depressants
must be topping the list. There is a host many other anti-stress treatments
available of which Big Pharma must be carving the lion's share. Examine
the micro-economic impact immediately following a split or divorce. There
is an instant doubling on the demand for accommodation, instant doubling
on the demand for electrical and household items among many other products
and services. But the icing on the cake and what is really most critical
for Neoliberalism must be this: With the morale barometer hitting
the bottom, people will be less likely to think of a better future, and
therefore, less likely to protest. In fact, there is nothing left worth
protecting.
Your freedom has been curtailed. Your rights are evaporating in front
of your eyes. And Best of all, from the authorities' perspective, there
is no relationship to defend and there is no family to protect. If you have
a job, you want to keep, you must prove your worthiness every day to 'a
company'.
"... Some will remember Walker's famous dispatch from the sharp end of the battlefield in Ukraine, in which he and his sidekick, Roland Oliphant, personally witnessed a Russian military convoy crossing into Ukraine, presumably bound for mischief in the Donbas and never got a picture. You just have to take their word for it. As I also mentioned before, Walker has his cellphone handy to snap a piccie if Aeroflot puts too much dill on his inflight meal. It's pretty hard to imagine he and his pal were on a daring mission to prove Russian military complicity in the resistance of Eastern Ukraine, and didn't bring along a single piece of equipment capable of taking a photograph. ..."
Those who are regular readers here know what I think of Shaun Walker, the British Austin Powers
lookalike and blabbermouth-at-large who scribes Russophobic nonsense for The Guardian ,
The Independent and whoever else will pay him. Naturally, since he sometimes actually lives
in Moscow and writes about Russia a lot – all of it reliably sarcastic and mocking of the backward
and bewildered Russian peasantry – and knows how to say "Sheremetyevo", he is regularly touted as
a 'Russia expert' by the western media who feature his caustic denunciations of the Evil Empire and
its wicked Emperor, Vladimir Putin.
Some will remember Walker's famous dispatch from the sharp end of the battlefield in Ukraine,
in which he and his sidekick, Roland Oliphant, personally witnessed a Russian military convoy crossing
into Ukraine, presumably bound for mischief in the Donbas and never got a picture. You just have
to take their word for it. As I also mentioned before, Walker has his cellphone handy to snap a piccie
if Aeroflot puts too much dill on his inflight meal. It's pretty hard to imagine he and his pal were
on a daring mission to prove Russian military complicity in the resistance of Eastern Ukraine, and
didn't bring along a single piece of equipment capable of taking a photograph.
All that notwithstanding, this is not really about Shaun Walker. He merely provided the catalyst
for this post. I was reading an article awhile ago which quoted him, although of course I cannot
find it now. This was around the time Russia kicked out some 600 or so employees of the United States
Embassy to the Russian Federation in Moscow. Although it was too big a deal to ignore it altogether,
the USA downplayed it by insisting almost none of them would be Americans, that the people let go
would be almost entirely Russian 'local hires', and that the Embassy was rather looking forward to
the folksy experience of teamwork and camaraderie which would see the Ambassador driving the mail
truck and various diplomats sweeping the floors and taking out the trash. As if.
Anyway, for some time now Shaun Walker has been possessed of the belief that he has noticed something
overlooked by the rest of the snoopy world; that back when Obama
expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the USA – ostensibly for Russian meddling in the American
election and making Hillary lose – that would have been the time for Putin to drop the political-expulsion
hammer of retaliation. But he didn't. Basically, there was no overt reaction whatever. Despite the
fact that at the same time, the US government seized two Russian 'compounds'; property owned by Russia
in the United States and used for diplomatic purposes.
Although Russia protested at the time – the properties were
bought by the Soviet government, during the Cold War , at market prices and with US government
approval and are therefore the legal property of the Soviet Union's inheritors – that the behavior
was a de facto and de jure violation of international law, Russia did not react
in kind.
A-HA!! says Walker. The reason for this apparent passivity is that Moscow was 'desperate' to see
the return of these compounds – particularly the Maryland one, which is on Chesapeake Bay and which
the Kremlin uses to covertly communicate with its submarines at sea. Please, don't laugh; I'm serious.
Oh, Walker himself has never publicly aired the submarine theory, to the best of my knowledge, although
he has helped via uncritical repetition to push the theory that Russia uses its diplomatic properties
in the USA for 'spying'.
The cavalier confiscation of property without offering any proof at all that it is/was being used
for nefarious purposes is typical of modern Washington administrations, for whom the law is useful
only when it serves their purposes. But that's not really what got my attention. No, I was more interested
in the over-use of the 'desperate' meme to characterize Russia; everywhere you look, Russia or Putin
– or both – is 'desperate' about this or that. To hear the west tell it, through its stable of journalists,
Russia has its back to the wall, as the forces of righteousness and retribution remorselessly advance.
Is that the way it is, do you think?
I'll tell you up front – I don't. What I think is that the 'desperate' label belongs to Washington,
as Russia tears its playhouse down, room by room, around the world.
In Syria. Remember Aleppo, which was lovingly shaped by western journalists as the Alamo of Syria,
the last-ditch stand of all that was decent against the malevolent double-whammy of the merciless
butcher Assad and hordes of Russian bombers indiscriminately blasting the shit out of everything?
You don't hear much about Aleppo now, although you certainly would if it remained a shooting-gallery
for the Syrian Arab Army. But in fact, since hostilities ceased with the SAA's taking of the city,
more than 600,000 Syrians have moved back to their homes in Aleppo , according to the International
Organization for Migration and as reported by fearless independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone.
Washington did everything it could, short of a preemptive strike, to stop the combined forces
of Russia and the democratically-elected Syrian government from re-taking Aleppo, from frantic babbling
for a cease-fire at every SAA advance to the absurd childish exhortations of wholly-owned State Department
propaganda outlet Bana Albed to start World War Three rather than let Assad and Russia triumph. I'm
not making that up; she (or her typist) actually tweeted, "Dear world, it's better to start 3rd
world war instead of letting Russia and assad commit (hashtag) HolocaustAleppo" . Clearly, a
girl after Phil Breedlove's own heart, and if you don't mind my saying so, quite an adult encapsulation
from somebody who later could only parrot "Save the children of Syria" no matter what her interviewers
asked her, and who
can plainly
not speak English .
In Ukraine. When Washington directly intervened in Ukraine's Maidan protests – which up to that
time had been a somewhat desultory performance by a small crowd mostly comprised of students, but
which quickly morphed under State Department direction into a muscular PR vehicle with
paid-for crowds – it was all going to go like clockwork. The regime-change operation had been
refined and bored and stroked through several successful operations, and it was child's play to knock
over Yanukovych even though he had capitulated to all the protesters' demands except that he step
down immediately, granting opposition figures significant government representation. But Washington's
naive idealizations of how it would make a prosperous western-style market democracy of Ukraine ignored
a few important things – such as that cutting it off from Russia also cut it off from more than half
of its export market, and that its oligarchy remained entirely in place except for Yanukovych. The
aforementioned non-Yanukovych oligarchy merrily continued stealing most of the GDP, since it is not
a major concern of oligarchs who is in charge. Even if it were, the leader soon was
one of their own .
These days, all you hear is how corruption is
threatening the rebirth of Ukraine as a western acquisition, and quite a few of the western cheerleaders
have
grown exasperated with Ukraine's lack of progress toward 'western standards'. Even Nolan Peterson,
former US Special Forces pilot and full-time Russophobe, who formerly spoke of Ukraine in the rhapsodic
tones normally reserved for Mom's cooking and American Values,
is annoyed . Floundering ever closer to failed-statehood, Ukraine has become the tar-baby the
west doesn't want any more, but cannot let go of. Snatching Ukraine away from the Eurasian Union
really hurt Russia, didn't it? In fact, there is every possibility it will one day – under a different
government – be associated once more with Russia, although it will be a sadder and wiser country
by that time. Who has it cost more to try the Ukrainian-remodeling project – Russia, or the west?
At home, in America. The silly effort to sell the story that Russian state hackers stole the election
for Trump is falling apart, as former intelligence professionals point out that the data transfer
rate of the stolen data which was taken from the DNC server was
far too high to have occurred over the internet . Instead, they argue, it was much more likely
to have been tapped off directly with a thumb drive (USB stick) or some such similar device. Washington's
counter to this has so far been that the FSB could have access to much faster networks. I suppose
they might, but why would they go to so much trouble to steal data on the Democrats, and then leave
their own fingerprints all over it?
That doesn't mean the Democrats – and those for whom Russian hacking is a convenient story to
be used for fomenting fear of Russia and an inability to think straight – are going to just give
up, of course. No, indeed. They doubled down a long time ago and are now quadrupling down, or something.
The latest frantic – yes, 'desperate' – dodge is the
very convenient emergence of a Ukrainian 'malware expert' whose hacking tools were stolen by
the Russian state to carry out their underhanded undertakings. He has been arrested, and is going
to turn 'state's evidence' to clear his name. Absurd. 'Guccifer' the recently-famous hacker who was
supposedly responsible for penetrating Clinton's server, identified as a Romanian; Romania is an
EU country. That wasn't the 'Russia' flag Hillary and the Democrats were looking for, and
hokey behavioral studies which suggested Guccifer was telling the truth were tossed out – he
was obviously a liar. But now 'Profexer' (no word if that is his Christian name or his patronymic)
has appeared and looks ready to blow the whistle on Russian hacking. Giving up is for weaklings.
We were discussing, in the later comments to the previous post, who it was who said that no Empire
has lasted longer than 300 years, considering the USA celebrated its bicentennial in 1976. Although
I was unable to find any reference which spelled that out – the introduction to "Legacy of Ashes",
a book on the CIA, contains a quote which says no Republic has lasted more than 300 years
– my search did turn up this quote, attributed to Alexander Tytler, in 1787.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters
discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result
that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations
have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith
to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency
back to bondage.
If it were possible to substitute "confusion and ignorance due to being bullshitted six ways from
Sunday on the true state of affairs by journalists who owe their loyalty to the political machine"
for "complacency", I'd say that's just about the stage we're seeing right now.
Not much of a step from there to bondage, is it? Better get to the head of the line early; otherwise
the Nerf shackles will be all gone.
"... Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class. ..."
"... There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns. ..."
"... The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be. ..."
"... People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there. ..."
"... "In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now. ..."
"... I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer ..."
"... With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times... ..."
"... The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one. ..."
"... Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit. ..."
Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless
of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.
So a billionaire like Trump, with Bannon's aid, does whatever he can to focus the disatisfaction of the population on people
who have a different skin colour, rather than the vastly rich elites who have grabbed such a massive share of US wealth and power
- and demand yet more
There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels
it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns.
Must have gone down really well in those rustbelt towns where everyone is on oxycontin out of sheer despair. But hey, they're
only rednecks so who cares right ?
Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country,
regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.
Exactly, it's all about creating a group you can point to and say "at least you're not as bad off as them!"
When your entire existence is predicated on 'at least I'm not the worst off' it becomes frightening when those who were previously
'worse off' start improving. But instead of improving themselves they try and bring the others down again.
That's what I don't get about the Nazis who turned up in Charlottsville: they chanted "Jews will not replace us" and also "we're
going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump". How can Nazis believe Trump is on their side when his daughter is married to a
Jew? There are so many contradictions in this situation that I can't get my head around it.
Someone has to lose out in a redistribution of anything, be it political power or wealth. I mention the white middle classes
because they tend to the the keyboard warriors refusing to tackle the insecurities and concerns of the white working class, and
simply resorting to calling them racist.
The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism
has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but
I wonder how many others would be.
Agree with your latter point and I'm sensitive to the fact that within class groups, minorities and women remain disadvantaged;
I'm not saying we don't continue to look at that. But realistically, on an economic level, you're not going to get white working
class men accepting that middle class minorities or women are disadvantaged compared to them, are you? The only reason this distinction
doesn't seem to happen (class lines) is because most of the SJW contingent suddenly have to check an aspect of privilege they're
unkeen to pay attention to.
People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white
middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while
the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.
As to Bannon still in the job, I think LBJ's story about tents and which way the piss goes applies.
Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.
As others have noted, given that both of them worked in finance/had some background in finance, it's odd that their fathers
lost savings which could have been avoided (Bannon's father, for instance, only lost out because he sold his stock but it regained
its value shortly afterwards, i.e. it was a bad financial decision). But as you say, its out there.
Indeed. If you held on through the crash you now have double the money you had in 2007.
There are some pretty basic retirement rules (60/40 equity to bonds or less, keep 2 years in cash) which if anyone followed
would have resulted in no pain from the crash, just some anxiety.
If he got greedy, had 100% in equities and sold at the bottom of the market because he had not kept a cash cushion - well he
cannot blame the Chinese for that.
Of course he was bitter before his son became a billionaire, but to still be bitter is more about character than the economy.
"In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must
be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon,
the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.
"What we are witnessing," Bannon told The Washington Post last month, "is the birth of a new political order.""
An interesting interpretation of his behavior. I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring
his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner.
" and it has forged an indefatigable core of support that will stay with Trump through the next general election and
beyond."
Except that atavistic and uneducated people can and will change their sense of allegiance on a dime or a whim and given the
fact that Trump is not an ideologue but rather an unstable pathological narcissist and a bigot (versus espousing a coherent racist
plan of action because he has a particular ideological agenda) there is no way to effectively predict what his actions will echo
in that part of his base and therefore no way to predict what his base will do if Trump is untethered from Bannon. Trump is as
likely to make a boneheaded deal with China that pleases Wall Street as he is to accidentally start a war. He is as likely to
break his support as he is to cement it.
As Christopher Hitchens said:
"A feature, not just of the age of the end of ideology, but of the age immediately preceding the age of the end of ideology,
is that of the dictator who has no ideology at all."
Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer though he is a bigot and clearly dictatorial. Trump
is all expediency first and faith second even if he has consistently been a racist.
The second problematic issue is that if you assert that Axelrod and Rove "achieved" anything of lasting consequence then Axelrod
could not have followed Rove and Bannon could not have followed Axelrod.
Unlike in France where the president serves far longer the reelection cycle here with its utterly corrupt need to raise massive
amounts of cash which then forces candidates to constantly be in race mode (and effectively reduces the period of actual governance
to around 18 months) has created a perpetually unstable and ineffective bureaucracy that has more in common with late Ottoman
inefficiency than it does with a contemporary "modern" state.
With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both
omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times...
Further, there is this: "There's another reason why firing Bannon wouldn't be a huge loss: his work is largely done."
In fact, Trump has achieved nothing and done nothing of lasting change to the bureaucracy. In a sense it is analogous to the
situation with North Korea where, despite Trump's pale Strangelove imitation it was noted in the media that the military had made
no changes to its posture.
The only time I have ever agreed with Bannon is that his analysis of the potential for N Korea to destroy S Korea with an artillery
barrage. With about 12,000 artillery prices the North could launch somewhere around 50,000 shells per minute into Soul. Do the
arithmetic for a 10 minute shelling. Any grandstanding by the US military is simply folly.
The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class
to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic
fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one.
Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it
will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing
to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
Neoliberal guardian presstitute in all glory... It's a real Orwellian hate hour. Those presstitutes
do love Saudi monarchy, though
But with is interesting that the tone of comments recently changes and composition of audience changed
too. the number of hateful comments about Russia is astounding, and suggest some manipulation of public
opinion. It is plausible that some or most comments are produced by government agencies or with the
help of volunteers. It is difficult to see which comments are genuine and which are generated.
Guardian,Telegraph,BBC,CNN,CBS,NBC ... all the letters of the alphabet have no intention of
questioning US claims of authority to invade, attack, destroy nations who they decide are to be
destroyed.... Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.etc.
Bush Cameron,Obama,Clinton, ´we came , we saw, he died, ha, ha, ha´ .....
I never heard Putin say anything like that..... push back against US war mongering and UK EU
support or indifference to 25 years of destruction and mayhem... not Russian tv
Bah: that's crap. WikiLeaks is still producing relevant stuff on the DNC and HRC as it goes along,
and on the military-industrial complex in general. There's nothing wrong with that - and those
that think it's 'corrupted' merely because it kicked over a beloved seizure horse really need
to seriously re-examine their biases. As for this:
Their main motivation seems to be that acknowledging that Putin is a vicious dictator who
interfered in US election denigrates Wikileaks.
??? Who in the hell thinks that? In short: citation needed. Badly.
I'm sorry as much as I would like to jump on the bandwagon (and there's much wrong in Russia),
but isn't this article speaking for exactly what the police accused the writer accused of - journalism?
If he indeed came on a tourist visa and does investigative work, that is in a shady area, whatever
the country. If I come to the U.S. and speak to groups as the Resistance, Black Lives Matter and
democratic party leaders, I'd hardly classify as a tourist, no?
Given the truly odious regimes we do business with and never criticise, it is telling that we
never hear anything positive about Russia. Nor did we when it was part of the Communist USSR.
It can't be an orchestrated US led campaign of destabilisation to allow the West access to those
huge oil and gas resources!!!
>>"Ah, yes I remember Russia invading several countries in the last, lets say 15 years. Damn,
we should keep a close eye on them."
Your reply appears to be alluding to several recent US led attacks on Arab regimes. Accordingly,
in so far as it engages my observation that Putin's Russia approaches a fascist dictatorship that
is a threat to countries on its borders, to the EU and to liberal democracy, you suggests one
of four things:
(a) The US likewise approaches a fascist dictatorship
(b) The US poses a similar threat to the EU
(c) The US poses a similar threat to liberal democracy
(d) The US poses a similar threat to the countries on Russia's borders.
Plainly, however, all of (a) to (d) are false.
I conclude that the evident pleasure you take in what seems to you to be a clever comment is smug
and delusional.
These days Russia woos like a gangster, not a lover.
That's not the impression I get, at all. I find them to be relatively restrained, thoughtful
and civil. Especially given the expansionist antics that NATO has got up to over the years.
It's easy to point the finger at Moscow, a habit that is over a century old. If the west had
taken Thatcher's advice over the handling of the USSR, none of this would have probably come to
pass.
It all really boils down to what kind of facts he was after. To, me, his whole piece sounds pretty
much like hate-mongering, and yes it also can be classified as propaganda. So, the dude went to
Russia pretty much with an agenda of collecting facts fitting with his already planned and pre-commissioned
book, and then is so much 'surprised' when the trip is classified as professional work , not tourism.
And when they asked him to sign paperwork confirming that he was travelling as a pro - he called
it 'fake'. Wonderful way of presenting things that rivals the tv show he is so much disgusted
with. Btw, if you want to enjoy real Orwellian hate-hour - just travel to US and turn on CNN ,
or any other mass media tv channel.
kleptocratic clique
-- just like Trump and May
Nazi weren't a different, long extinct species, they're alive and well as Rethugricans and Torys,
today, mostly.
The UK Empire and the USA Empire are among the greatest evil the world has seen.... and they need
enemies to maintain war profits.
Interesting article, but let's be honest. It has become long clear that non-Western nations can
not be viewed with Western social and political goggles. Putin might not meet many of the check
boxes that symbolize Western (Democratic Values), neither does the US when we take a good close
look or any of the other Western countries.
Point being: hate mongering by Russian TV is being seen as scary yet most Russian view Western
Media as Hate-Mongers against Russia.
Tell me: Who is right here?
Yet another article that fails to face up to the West's abysmal failure in Russia in the 1990s.
Then, they thought the West was friendly to the new non-Communist Russia. A Russia that had given
up its Colonial Empire than any nation in the West managed.
The Yeltsin years saw a rise in the death rate, a shrinking of the economy and vast amounts
of public property pass into the hands of crooks. This happened thanks to crackpot New Right schemes
that issued shares as individual property of the company workers. Outside of New Right fairy tails,
it was absolutely predictable that almost all of them would be sold for immediate cash profit.
And not unexpected that it was crooks who scooped the big prizes.
Setting up genuine collectives in which you can't sell your share for cash might have worked.
Anathema to the New Right, even though such schemes work and there need not be anything leftist
about them.
So, years of miserable failure under Yeltsin. A recovery under Putin, whom polls show to be
one of the most popular Russians ever. Though coming second to Stalin, and Western 'experts' should
be wondering why instead of sneering at it from what they suppose to be a position of superior
wisdom.
Protestors say that this was all wrong. That the majority who still back Putin are not allowed
to do this, for unexplained reasons.
General Russian intolerance for the tiny minority nostalgic for the years of Russia's decline
and humiliation is regrettable. But hardly unexpected. Do you think Britons would be any more
tolerant had they been though something similar? You need only look at Northern Ireland and the
dominant DUP to get the answer.
Or UKIP, which surged until the Tories took over many of its policies.
Don't be lazy, read the report of UN inspection group report about gas attacks in 2013, which
freely available online, before making whose baseless accusations. Or just watch
the video http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Carla Del Ponte ex-leading member of a UN commission of inquiry saying that rebels used sarin.
Sorry, were you there on a work visa or a holiday visa? And what was the work visa for? It sounds
to me like you've been pulled up and let off lightly for doing something you know better than
to do.
-->
The new Russia is a reflexion of western policy, the more the west interfere tne more nationalistic
and oppressive they will become. It seems Mr Putin may have detractors and yes he is becoming
ever more authoritarian but he still has popular support as far as I'm aware.
This is a issue that the Russian people will resolve in their own time in their own unique
manner, interference simply closes ranks. There seems to be a concerted effort to demonize Russia
by the western press yet the west allies its self with far more oppressive regimes, it is a glaring
double standard, this alone makes me question the validity of all anti Russian articles.
Mr Putin has a habit of serving radioactive tea to his fellow citizens so if invited to dinner
I would insist on a food taster, that alone wouldn't stop me going if invited, not that our secret
services are beyond such nefarious activitys.
The fact is that four out of five Russians like the status quo, don't like being falsely accused
of 'invading' Ukraine or 'stealing' Crimea, don't like Poland facilitating NATO aggression, don't
like being denounced (by neocons, already) for doing the dirty work of cleaning out ISIS in Syria.
In general they don't like foreigners lecturing them on how to become more like the Europe
or America which have so often tried to conquer and plunder them- unsuccessfully. They still remember
what neoliberal economics did to the country after communism packed up.
They want to be Russians, and sometimes they express that preference somewhat crudely. They
think it takes a strongman to hold the place together, be he Nevsky, Ivan, Peter the Great, Suvorov,
Stolypin or Stalin. They judge the latest iteration of the strongman figure rather less dictatorial
and punitive than his predecessors.
Since the RF is slowly and fitfully becoming more capitalist and more Christian, why not stop
riling it and concentrate on the world's really bad actors- instead of portraying Putin as a modern
Blofeld, because the military industrial complex needs more arms orders?
Here is someone who is basically a journalist who travels to Russia and gets a job thus breaking
the laws about tourism and work that exist everywhere in the world particularly in Britian see
Brexit problems He is arrested and given a small fine whats his problem?
His function as a tourist/spy journalist is to write an article attacking every aspect of Russia
,its people and government.
What is behind all this insane talk about the Russians the Russians?
Its quite simple really. America has ways believed that its destiny is to rule and control the
world.
Its main enemy has always been the British which is why it supported Germany in WW1 AND The Nazis
in WW2 confidently expecting Britiain to be invaded and defeated (there was no way that had America
could have helped Britain if this had happened at such a late stage.
After WW2 there was Russia to contend with.Of course there was no real threat but the cold war
kept the US defence industry going and gave Americans good jobs
With the collapse of the Soviet Union the full greed of America was unleashed which has resulted
in an appallingly broken nation with two thirds of Americans living in appalling conditions while
the rich get richer every day. In this situation there is only one thing to be done ..bring on
the big Russian Bear. Nothing makes poor people forget their misery like being frightened and
having someone to hate. Its true Russia also has750 nuclear missiles ready to fire at the west
and that does irritate Americans but its nothing compared to America
America is trying to humiliate Russia by destroying Russias only ally in the Middle east Syria
and has used the western media to use every trick to demonise Assad
Will America actually destroy the world as a result of all this? Possibly if not probably
Meanwhile the best advice is stop reading articles attacking Russia Support Putin and Assad and
if you cant ,go on holiday and wait for the nuclear cloud coming soon to a town like yours....
Let me understand something. You go to Russia and called the Russian government a kleptocracy
and the police as thuggish then expect to be treated with respect and with love. Come to New York
with that nonsense and you may well end up in our local hospital if you're lucky.
-->
RoeMaporix asked: "Does anyone over here actually like Putin?"
No doubt I'll get labelled a 'Putinbot', but I reckon there could be worse people in charge
of Russia. Alas Yeltsin and his entourage encouraged the Russian mafia (oligarchs) so much that
Putin had a hell of a job to try and clear up the mess he left.
It amuses me that the mafia trusted him so much that they installed him, and then he turned
on them (moral: never trust a cop). Unfortunately to make any inroads into the gangster state
he took over, he had to act like a gangster himself, but you only have to look at his enemies
to see that out of a very bad choice, he was probably the best.
Ordinary Russians seem to like/approve of him, and that is all that matters for me, he reflects
their values (unpopular as they may be in the 'liberal' west.)
He also strikes me as a very clever man who goes his own way (which are virtues I respect)
who also surrounds himself with very clever advisors.
Yes, coupled with the pre-crime in Syria it really does sound like the drumbeat for war is starting..oh
and for an excellent set of responses to the first "chemical attack" ignore the massively biased
and under researched hogwash from the OPCW and check out Theodor Postol's papers, and also Sy
Hersh' excellent piece in Die Welt this week..No, I won't provide links. If people are really
interested in finding out the truth, a little self-reliance is necessary these days..
You have not been in a British Cell, by the sound of it.
Navalny was posting from his cell on the internet.
Here they take your glasses away so that you cannot see.
We had enough of so much sugar pushed down our throats.
Propaganda unlimited.
Tourists should walk round Red Square and go to the Bolshoi, not interview politicians or visit
environmental disaster zones, or meet teenage supporters of Putin
I know of people who got barred from entering the UK, and even worse barred from entering the
US because of their religion.
It is a fact that troublemakers are not welcome in any country, except Iraq and Libya.
"... "The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said. ..."
There you go – he's received the ultimate shock; time to go home to the Pearl of Empire and spend
his dotage rambling the moors in his wellies, or watching the sea thrash the Cornish coast, or
something. Time to leave Russia, in any event; he's been studying it for 45 years, and this is
the best he can come up with, while he plainly does not understand it. Why does he spend his time
there, if everyone is a thug and a hate leader – why, in the name of God, does he spend time in
a country where people live who have never heard of George Orwell?
By the bye, if you enter the UK on a visitor's visa and then work as a journalist, you might
be looking at a
10-year ban on a subsequent re-application , you parrot-faced wazzock.
"The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance
from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they
haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk
a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said.
i think my main concern with evolutionary psychology is by
rationalising these behaviours as being the result of long term
trends there is no way of explaining substantial changes in behaviour
over time. and we know, despite the daily mails best efforts, that
british culture (for example) is less aggressive and sexist than it
was 50 years ago, 100 years ago etc. although there's still a long
ways to go...
Some of that is likely to be genetic. Really aggressive people tend
to get weeded out of civilised societies either by committing crime and
then either being executed or jailed. The other route of course is to go
to war, and not come back.
Other influences are that as society becomes less aggressive and more
law abiding more children know their fathers and live with them. We know
that boys in particular raised without their fathers tend to be more
aggressive than those raised by them.
As for less sexism I think rather paradoxically that we can blame the
wars for that, the industrial ones at least when women were needed to
keep the country running so the men could go off and fight. Of course
when they came back there was a shortage of men so some women were
needed to go on working. This increased in the second and even though
the Fifties were supposedly an era of housewives this was only part of
the story. The interesting thing is how it was kept going afterwards
when there 'enough' men again. I suspect that the white heat of
technology was to blame here, the increasing complexity of industry,
technology, university expansion etc meant our societies simply needed
the intelligence, knowledge, dexterity etc of women, so not only did the
men learn to value them by working alongside them but they had the
economic independence to demand less sexism.
You are right to be skeptical of evolutionary psych that considers
only Western people but not all of it does and that tendency should not
be used to damn the entire field. As Trivers points out not just our
primate relatives but creatures like scrub jays have been shown to
employ deceit. We know at what stage our infants are able to deploy it,
Trivers points out that the more intelligent we are the more likely we
are to lie. So therefore it is not unreasonable to think it is somehow
hardwired in us. Whether that means there are genes for
deceit
there may well be neural circuits for it, tied into things like mirror
neurons that give us theory of mind.
Also while it is true that we are not slaves to all of our evolution
laden tendencies it does not follow that we are entirely free of all of
them. For eg while it is possible to stare oneself to death in the face
of food, not many have managed to take the much shorter route to death
of voluntarily refusing to drink. We have biochemical pathways to enable
us to endure periods when food is scarce or absent or we are stupid
enough to try Dr Atkins's diet. We can scavenge water from our food and
stave off thirst that way but we cannot stave off thirst itself. The
body has only limited ways of generating water. Burning carbs or fat
will give you some but by far not enough for more than about 3 days max.
Genes were responsible, somehow, for you fighting the whirlwind to
save your sister, but probably not your less related cousin, and
certainly not the stranger from down the road.
This is only one reason for altruism. Among social animals, altruism
is probably much more to do with evolutionary game theory: we generally
cooperate with everyone, but defect on anyone who has previously
defected on us - a
tit-for-tat
strategy, which is beneficial for
the individual (or for its genes) and can lead to robust global
cooperation.
Konrad Lorenz
and
Desmond Morris
, or anthropologists such as
Lionel Tiger
. They linked studies of animal behaviour to the idea of Darwinian
evolutionary principles to tell readers just how very like the beasts we were in
our sex lives, our workplaces and our recreational behaviours. We were advised to
look at chimps and other primates and derive understanding of ourselves from their
apparently culture-free activities and traits. Underneath all our fancy culture
and language, we were simply naked apes enacting primitive territorial
imperatives.
The reading public lapped it up as both a neat, satisfying
narrative, and as an excuse for all manner of not-so-civilised behaviours for
which we no longer had to take personal and moral blame. We go to war – well, so
do baboons; it's in our genes, we can try to overcome it, but in the end as in the
beginning we're all just animals. By 1976 we didn't even have to blame the animal
in ourselves: Richard Dawkins gave us the selfish gene, whose sole reason for
existence was to reproduce itself. And we, that is the body and brain of you and
me, were nothing but vehicles for these genes which compelled us to optimise their
chances of replicating. Talk to the gene, the conscience isn't listening.
Much of this was based on algebraic theories of altruism developed by
WD Hamilton
, who shifted the mechanism of evolution from making groups fitter
to survive to a new insistence on individual inclusive fitness. This was via kin
selection, which drills down deeper than the inter-relatedness of individual
organisms, to the separate alleles (of which genes are made) in every organism:
these preferentially promote only those vehicles which contain alleles most
closely related to themselves. Genes were responsible, somehow, for you fighting
the whirlwind to save your sister, but probably not your less related cousin, and
certainly not the stranger from down the road.
Some people were not crazy about this view of the human race. Genes doing
algebra didn't suit a more macrocosmic idea of a fallible but responsible
humanity.
Robert Trivers
was the man who produced the unifying theory of kin selection
and altruism. Now, decades on, he has arrived at a big, new universal theory, also
essentially based on the arithmetic of gene selection. Deceit is useful where
telling the (unpleasant) truth would hamper your progress. Progress towards what?
Trivers would say your fitness, which is defined as raising the chances of
replicating your genes into the next generation.
Your genes, apparently, would agree with him; but they would, wouldn't they?
That is if they were capable of agreeing. I want to hang on to the fact that the
building blocks of ourselves do not want or intend anything. Chemicals aren't
conscious, although by amazing chance they can combine to make a conscious
organism.
Once self-conscious humans begin to do science, and with the benefit of
language, start to describe the nature of the chemicals that make them what they
are, but having to use regular language if they want a large audience (maths is a
much better language, but fewer people can read it), they cannot help but slide
into the notion of intention. Dawkins's selfish gene gained an absurd life of its
own because most people don't speak arithmetic.
The biological mechanism by which we conceal inconvenient truths from ourselves
and others is shown, says Trivers, in functional MRI scans of blood flow
associated with neural activity in the brain: "It is estimated that fully ten
seconds before consciousness of intent, the neural signals begin that will later
give rise to the consciousness and then the behaviour itself." Freud, who always
believed that neurology would discover a physical basis for the unconscious, would
be delighted, though according to Trivers, psychoanalysis is nothing more than a
money-grabbing hoax. Yet there remains a void between brain chemicals doing what
they do and the emergence of the sense we all have of possessing a mind.
Trivers's theories of deceit and self-deceit are based on multiple gleanings
from experimental psychology. A trial with rats shows this, another with students
suggests that. The actual experiments are referenced, rather minimally, in
page-related endnotes, but Trivers's writing is full of halting phraseology as he
slips from findings in the lab or questionnaire to the generality of human social
behaviour.
He suggests from relatedness theory that fathers should show a "slight genetic
bias towards their daughters", but "no one knows if this is true". General
assertions about human behaviour are peppered with such phrases as "One is tempted
to imagine ", "in mice at least ", "work still in its infancy ", "first
speculations ", "Whether any of my speculations are true I have no idea ". And,
really, if he doesn't, I certainly don't.
Once he has laid out his evidence, our biologically determined deceit behaviour
is ready to account for just about everything Trivers doesn't like about the
world, such as the false justifications for the invasion of Iraq, the
self-deceiving use, by the US and UK, of 9/11 to declare war on oil-rich countries
and on to torture, religion and stock-market trading. It so happens that Trivers
and I dislike much the same things but, though I daresay knowledge is generally
better than lack of it, I'm not convinced of the benefits of offering us the
excuse of having been manipulated by our genes for our repeatedly scurrilous
behaviour.
While the first part of the book explains the theory, and the second part
discusses how deceit was responsible for all the political and social injustices
both he and I perceive in the world, there is a third element woven through both.
An actual individual life, that of Trivers himself, emerges, like a gene in the
organism, offered perhaps as a consciously self-deprecating example of what
evolutionary pressure to deceive can do to a person. Somehow, though, it comes
across as back-handed boasting.
The man whom Trivers calls "I" is a compulsive thief who can't go into a room
without coming away with a trophy. He talks of his "'inadvertent' touching of
women", which occurs exclusively with his left (unconscious) hand. Apropos chimps
turning their backs to hide an erection from a dominant male, he explains that he
finds it very hard "in the presence of a woman with whom I am close, to receive a
phone call from another woman with whom I may have, or only wish to have, a
relationship, without turning my back to pursue the conversation".
He understands the male/female gender split by recollecting "trying to poison
the minds of my three daughters against their mother". He nearly killed his
girlfriend and nephew by driving the nephew's "cool car" too fast on a precipitous
road, when he noticed her interest in the younger man. And after pages and pages
on biological selection, evolutionary pressure and the dangerous deception that is
religion, it not only turns out that he prays regularly, but he gives a short
lecture on the proper way to say the "Lord's Prayer" (emphasise "thy"). I wasn't
surprised to discover that he is on prescription antidepressants, as well as using
ganja and cocaine.
There will be Iron Johns who read this book and cheer, and although he explains
that each sex (abhorring the word "gender", which he calls a euphemism) contains
both male and female genes, my male genes are just too wimpy to find any charm in
Trivers's display of self-disclosure – machismo and pet peeves – dressed up as an
important new evolutionary understanding of humanity.
Jenny Diski's
What I Don't Know About Animals
is published by Virago.
Oh dear- could you then...disentangle your own behaviour from
your 'human nature".
In general- Yes. Human behaviour changes rapidly and depends on
culture and individual choices. Human nature changes very very slowly,
in 'evolutionary time'. Too slowly for it to be observed.
On the level of the individual -- No. I can't disentangle my personal
choices from my inherited tendencies. To what extent does my behaviour
(or my character)reflect my genes or upbringing, to what extent is it
my own free will? Nature, Nurture, or Nietzsche?, as Stephen Fry would
say. I can't say- except that I believe that we all have free will and
are therefore in most cases responsible for our actions.
As for 'my' human nature, that is a meaningless phrase. Human
nature I would define as the (evolved) psychological traits humans
have
in common
.
In his article Pinker gives (I think) quite a convincing
explanation of how human behaviour can be changing for the better,
while human nature (perforce) remains the same.
Oh dear- could you then-with the help of Pinker's
pseudo-scientific, deterministic, eurocentric tosh and/or Dawkins
overly simplistic, to the point of idiocy take on genes and evolution-
disentangle your own behaviour from your 'human nature.' I am really
curious.
Judges are always called "activist" when they fail to interpret the Constitution
according to someone's liking. Keep in mind that the judges you're referring to come from both parties
and all over the country.
"...a manufactured rumour of collusion for which no evidence has emerged>"
We're only in the first
few months.
You surely know that investigations take months to years. And what's your alternative?
Stop now & call the whole thing off? I'll bet it is.
"... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
"... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime
minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats
Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated
by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at
airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?
It matters on every street in Britain.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called
Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside
the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've
seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.
But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more
intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.
It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across
the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic
world.
The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face
of Saudi and Israeli opposition.
Qatar is diplomatically closer
to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties
prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.
The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence
of political Islam full stop.
Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to -
participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.
Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation
with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise
to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.
But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move
as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official
tweeted the spat was "the
prelimary result of the sword dance".
The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After
September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising
terrorist finance. But, as
a US cable released
by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant
source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".
Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation
and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.
However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably
by
executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.
In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they
extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism.
Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office
investigation into corruption at
BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.
We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled
attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.
One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa,
it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that
their "caliphate" will soon be over.
If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the
survivors as they fan out to do damage here?
In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board
with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter
rhetorical fight with each other.
As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump
flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the
moderates won.
But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones
in the Gulf will end. The
foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement
of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep
funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.
Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last
December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing
both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.
Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to
match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.
At the very time when American legal imperialism is gaining in strength and imposing its rules
and its dues on our companies, this decline in public justice is an aberration.
This is
a very important point and follows the US imposing fines on many foreign (to the US) banks for
infringing boycotts decided purely by the USA. At this moment the full treaty with Iran is not
being applied because firms outside the US are frightened to engage with Iran under a threat of
retribution by the USA. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the use of the Dollar
as a reserve currency. It is time that the importance of other currencies was recognised in international
trade I am thinking of the Euro and the Chinese Yuan.
"... The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan. ..."
"... Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red State inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies that appeal to the majority of people. ..."
"... There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan administration. The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching from Right/Center to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism as 'socialism', 'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party of neoliberal economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money and they are the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up and run with it instead of calling the the BS that it is. ..."
"... I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers. ..."
"... Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy. ..."
"... Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy YES. Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already displayed financial incompetence at Harvard, YES. ..."
The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan.
Reagan did the Savings
& Loan deregulation which led to the S&L bailout under G.W. Bush during which they prosecuted
over 1,000 bank executives and got convictions including five sitting senators with four forced
resignations.
After Clinton did the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and Obama prosecuted zero,
let me say that again, zero, bank executives and provided $9 trillion in bailout liquidity.
Take Amtrak between Chicago and Washington DC and witness wreckage of heartland industry along
a corridor 800 miles long. People still live there, forgotten. Bernie Sanders is not finished.
Listen to him; and put yourself up for election locally, on a Park District board; or a Township
position; as an Election Judge or for County or State office. And listen to your neighbors, who
are suffering. Then do something about it. When I ran for State Representative, the Democratic
Party sent me a highlighted map instead of a check for my campaign. The map showed "70% Republican"
voting registration in my State Representative district. No Party cash for my campaign was forthcoming.
The only way to change this Gerrymandering is to be on-hand in the State House following the next
decennial census in 2020. It will be "too late" to do anything -- again -- unless "we" change
the Party; and the Party changes the re-districting scam. Bernie Sanders is right about pitching
in to re-shape and re-form the Democratic Party. The Party, as constructed, is passé... and as
hollowed-out as the miles and miles of decrepit buildings with thousands of gaping, broken windows
that lie between Chicago and DC. Go see the devastation for yourself. Then get serious about answers.
Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red
State inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies
that appeal to the majority of people.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but Identity Politics has FAILED. The Dems are not
going to cobble together some sort of Ruling Coalition out of Transgendered people and urban people
of color. That's an insane strategy of hoping you will win national elections by appealing to
25% or less of the population of whom only half that number actually vote if you are lucky.
I'm not saying abandon those struggles. Under a just system those struggles will continue and
prevail - the Constitution guarantees that unless you get dishonest justices on the Supreme Court
- which seems more likely the more national elections you blow. Democrats need to stop worrying
about narrow single issues like that and focus on developing a BROAD national strategy to appeal
to the Majority of Americans.
So says the guy from Punjab who is NOT a poorly educated white person and who has voted Democrat
since 1980.
There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a
product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan
administration. The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching
from Right/Center to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism
as 'socialism', 'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party
of neoliberal economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money
and they are the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up
and run with it instead of calling the the BS that it is.
The problem with the Rust Belt states is that they keep on electing Republican state governments.
These fail to deliver on anything useful for working people -- they're more interested in entrenching
their power by tweaking the elections -- but then people turn to the Federal government as if
this is some kind of savior capable of turning around their fortunes overnight.
Anyway, don't take my word for it. Just keep electing those regressive state legislators (and
keep drinking that tainted water....).
Great comment on the article, but I think even you have been kind in your criticism of it. I can
only hope that the writer started out with the intention of saying that while the GOP and their
rich and big business political patrons are responsible for the impoverishment of those in the
article, the Democrats have missed out on messaging and on more specific policies that addresses
those wrongs committed against a voting block they can own. Instead the entire piece is written
as though the Democrats have earned the scorn and anger of these voters. One can argue the Democrats
have failed to focus more on the plight of these voters, but they are NOT the cause of these voters'
plight; and there is nothing in this piece to make that distinction or about the irony of why
these same voters flock to a political party primarily responsible for what has happened to them.
In fact consider this below from the article:
"Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's
board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. "
Yes, that is right! The political anomaly that Trump is can be be explained by the successful
exploitation of the improvised classes by media outlets that voice these voters' anger to acquire
a capture audience and then lay the blame for what has happened to them on immigrants & liberals.
You never hear anything on those outlets about the unholy triad of the GOP political class, big
business and media outlets in their orbit. I don't need to drive through these flyover states
to know they are hurting; and I don't need to sit down with them to know they are real human beings
with a great deal in common with me or to know that despite their general decency they are full
of misplaced anger and resentment.
I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think
that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could
not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were
instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly
to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since
they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers.
Interesting he choices of examples for how liberals let the mid west down. Republican president
Reagan deregulated S&Ls with predictable awful results. Republicans under Clinton (they controlled
the Senate and house ) when Glass Steagsll was repealed. Republic Phil Gramm also rescinded the
AntiBucket Shop Law which loosed the disaster of the naked CDS,
Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like
a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused
to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox
ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy.
It was Republican Sen. Phil Gramm who said in hearings on CSPAN that these instruments of financial
mass destruction (Warren Buffet's words) were too complicated to understand and therefore should
not be regulated.
Republicans wanted to free up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy subprime even NINJA loans and
made it so.
Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy
YES. Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already
displayed financial incompetence at Harvard, YES.
But, it is republicans who either drove the bad financial ideas or controlled them. Republicans
who support IRS rules and their laws that promote off shoring jobs and stashing cash untaxed off
shore.
Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, Bush41 - even Nixon - would not know these people.
Oh, and as for the rest of the party and its defeats: A quick look at the numbers show that Democrats
keep losing not because voters are switching to the Republican brand, but because they no longer
bother to vote for Democrats who are just going to shiv them in the back with Republican economic
policies.
But now liberals and the Democratic Party are to get the lion's share of the blame for everything?
As I've said on numerous occasions in the past: The reason Trump beat Hillary is the same reason
Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries: Voters knew her and what she stood for -- and so were willing
to take a chance on the other candidate.
Thank you for the Abramson reminder -- as a retired journalist I know the importance of providing
clear and accurate information to the general public. While Abramson and Frank and others are
writing Opinion in the Guard and elsewhere, too many people do not understand positioning and
propaganda. Media must make money to stay in business and often it is opinion writers/tv hosts
etc that generate interest and coin to keep the words rolling and the money coming in.
It is especially ironic as wages are cut, jobs disappear, cost of living rises so fewer people
can afford to subscribe or pay for actual news and information. Not to mention the political idiocy
of reducing school funding so that the electorate knows nothing of history or how politics works.
Trump wants to take us back to Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher years that left us with trillion
dollar deficits and decimation of the middle class that is now on the downward slide to actual
poverty...
No, it is a crap comment. From the neo-liberal 'pseudo science' that economics supposedly is (almost
forgot to use the word neo-liberal, a must these days to make your point) , to the greed and the
rapacity of the "one percenters".
Such a simple problem isn't it? Let's just go back in time rather than find more creative and
up-to-date solution for the problems there are. Globalisation isn't going to go away, the world
is too small a place. Globalisation has created problems for people, but many more people have
benefitted from it.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on
some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely. "
---
As someone who's middle aged, I am getting sick and tired of this historical revisionist nonsense
that all the country's woes and economic climate can be mostly pinned on the liberals and that
somehow, it's something that they did wrong that is the reason why they "lost" constituents in
the Midwest. Someone can peddle this nonsense over and over again with the smug belief that everyone
on on the internet is too young to know whether what he's saying is true. But there are some of
us "old folks" who are also on the internet and as an old folk, I have no issues calling out this
article out for the nonsense that it is.
Everything that is going on now in terms of jobs can be 100% attributable to Reaganomics--period,
end of. It's nothing to do with liberals. It's 100% to do with the devastating rippling effect
that his neoliberal policies has had on the country since the 1980s, only made 100x worse by Republican
pols who have been further carrying out his neoliberalist agenda to full effect for the past several
decades.
It was under Reagan that the country began experiencing mass layoffs (euphemistically called
"downsizing"). It was under Reagan that corporations began slashing benefits, cutting wages and
closing up shop to ship thousands of jobs overseas. It was under Reagan that the middle class
American dream died--aka, the expectation that if got a diploma, you could start working for a
company full time straight out of college, work for decades with decent benefits and perks, save
up enough money to buy a house and retire with a generous pension. Gone. All gone.
Remember the "Buy American" grassroots campaign? That started in the 1980s, precisely because
under Reagan, the country had relied increasingly on imported goods at the expense of domestic
manufacturing. Here's an actual article from 1989 that shows you that the roots of everything
going on now started decades ago. It's actually a defeatist article telling people to *stop* wasting
their time to get everyone to "Buy American" because it had become virtually impossible to buy
American-made goods.
As for the idea that there's always been a staunchly"Democratic" following in the Midwest that
has been "lost" because of something that the party is doing wrong and that this caused them to
turn to populism? False. It may have been true a very long time ago that this constituency has
been staunchly Democratic and not amenable to populism, but not recently. It has voted on populist
platforms before. Remember "welfare queens?" Remember "Willie Horton?" Willie Horton, the black
bogeyman, was the "bad hombres" of today.
In addition, this constituency has been increasingly voting against its best interests for
decades since Reagan was voted into office. Why? Because demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and the
large number of puppets at Rupert Murdoch's vast media empire have been selling them a bill of
goods since the 1990s that the reason why they're becoming poorer is that liberals are giving
all their "white" hard-earned money to shiftless, lazy blacks and immigrants and losing out to
them because of affirmative action. In the famous words of South Park, "THEY TOOK R JERBS" and
"IT'S ALL DUH LIBRUHL'S FAULTS!!"
This constituency has developed such a deep-seated hatred and loathing for liberals because
of the demagogues at FOX or news radio that even when Michael Moore directly spoke to their plight
in Roger and Me, they derided him as a typical Communist-loving, anti-Capitalist pinko. Because,
you see, according to FOX demagogues, calling out rich corporate fatcats who also happen to be
white is attacking white people, a form of class warfare and anti-Capitalist.
Given all that, for someone to try to paint a picture that this constituency would otherwise
be embracing liberalism if not for the Democratic Party adopting an "ideology" is laughable. They
were never going to win because anything short of ranting, "They took r jerbs" and "Damned brown
people on welfare and illegals stealing taking all our money" was going to cost them the election.
Bottom line, the Midwest was never the liberals' or Democratic Party's constituency to lose,
and Reagan is behind all of the economic devastation that the region is experiencing. Anyone else
trying to say otherwise is just using spin and historical revisionism.
That's exactly what America needs -- another neocon/neolib, just like Macron! As if Obama and
the Clintons hadn't been neocon/neolib enough!
Reply Share
Frank is right that the white working class in the Midwestern states have been the swing votes
for presidential elections since the Reagan election of 1984, when the white Democratic South
became more fully the white Republican South. But he is wrong in not recognizing that the Democratic
Party has three major constituents and it needs all of them to win elections and to do the progressive
things while in office that would help people like those in the Midwest. Democrats need the votes
of the white working class, but also of race/ethnic minorities, and the "new class" professionals
and others. The problem is that these groups have been fighting with each other since the 1960s,
continually undermining the chances for Democrats to win. In the period of the Civil Rights Movement
and the Vietnam War, students and professionals joined with race and ethnic minorities to challenge
the influence of the unionists, big city mayors, and white working class in the Democratic Party,
which is what gave us Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Through this period, predictably, more white
working class people either stopped voting or moved to the Republican Party. In the 2016 election,
with the Bernie Sanders influence, students and professionals began to attack the influence of
race and ethnic minorities (and women?) in the Democratic Party, ostensibly in support of the
white working class over "identity politics," with the result that we got Trump. Globalization
is a difficult and complex issue, but the reality is that since the 1970s the U.S. economy has
not been able to prosper, nor the working class jobs that it requires, by selling things only
in the U.S. We have to be in global markets and integrated with other economies around the world
and that requires trade deals that balance our interests against those of other countries. This
has generated winners and losers in the economy, and it will continue to do so. While it may not
be possible to bring back the same kinds of jobs that pay a middle class wage for those with not
much education, it should be possible to create new jobs that pay a middle class wage and to invest
in education and skill development, infrastructure, and a welfare state that sustains people through
periods of disruption and transformation. The Republican Party and the New Right that took it
over are fighting to the death to undermine what is left of the social safety net to force people
to take whatever jobs are available at exploitative wages, and they have been successful exploiting
anti-government sentiment by using racial animosity and more recently anti-immigrant hysteria.
The right has been successful because those on the left who should support the Democratic Party
and then fight for more progressive policies within it just keep fighting each other and in the
last election delivered Trump by voting third party (along with gutting of the Voting Rights Act,
voter suppression, Russian influences that helped Sanders and vilified Hillary Clinton, the rogue
FBI, Citizens United, and so on). The only option for the left in a two party system is to support
the Democratic Party. Staying home or voting third party is a vote for your worst enemy. France
is experiencing the same thing, with the left candidate refusing to support the more centrist
candidate against Le Pen. We all need to learn how to form coalitions and to keep our focus on
winning elections, not winning ideological battles.
Umm, the real goals of labor unions have been beach houses and new SUVs for labor leadership.
Unions have been adept at screwing over their memberships since at least the 1970s -- no wonder
they keep supporting anti-union Dims.
Maddow has to defend the Corporate Democratic Establishment any way she can. Maddow to my knowledge
has never mentioned:
Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta,
the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, for lobbying
its interests in the United States.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought
to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with
the Department of Justice. The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses,
on a contract from March through September 2016.
TheCubanGentlemen
,
27 Apr 2017 10:42
Sorry Mr. Cuban but Barney has a point. Sympathy for criminals? How
about a system that extracts wealth by taking family members that have
made a mistake hostage. Private prisons are incredibly corrupt. They pay
their guards $7 an hour, barely train them and then throw them into a
hellhole of starved and abused prisoners, prisoners who's families are
charged $2-5 a MINUTE to talk to them! Prisoners who are charged for
laundry, for new underwear, for sanitary napkins, for extra food
anything they can, they charge them for, all to meet a higher quarterly
profit. If they work, prisoners get only .25 an hour! Menawhile, the
items they make get a proud MADE IN AMERICA sticker and sold at a
premium netting the company MORE money. This is a direct threat to
DEMOCRACY! Why not contract our work to prisons with no liability and
infinitesimal wages to lower costs. Gee, doesn't that sounds like a
threat to low skilled workers?! Everything matters because EVERYTHING IS
CONNECTED!!!
--
,
iamwhiskerbiscuit
Ramus
,
27 Apr 2017 09:35
Very little differences between neoncons and neoliberals these days.
They're both in Goldman Saacs corner, they both support war even when
they claim otherwise during their election... Both laugh at the idea of
emulating countries that offer free Healthcare, free college, higher
minimum wage and lower cost of living. Bush tax policy = Obama tax
policy. Bush stance on war = Obama stance on war. Whats the difference?
Abortion and gun rights. That's pretty much all thats different. Pro
militarist, world police, globalists who favor a regressive tax system.
Don't like it? Don't vote... You have no say in this debate.
Yes, the Democratic Party are essentially corporate shills who talk
pretty to the poor and oppressed and then serve their corporate masters.
But that isn't why people voted against them. That would be assuming
some sort of political sophistication among the masses. It is rather,
IMHO, the corporate owned media in the form of AM radio, cable and local
news outlets, and most local newspapers who either report on nothing
that might change the status quo or are actual propaganda outlets for
the ultra right. The fact that Fox news and right wing radio is the
background music of mid America, should not be discounted. And secondly,
the seizure of nearly all of the church pulpits by the 'religious'
right. People vote the way their pastor tells them to vote. This isn't
rocket science. When there is a coup, the first order of business has
always been to seize the radio and TV stations. Bernie who ?
In a close election, there is something of
everything. But this concept that the
election turned on these displaced workers is
hilarious. In truth, we've been talking about
things like this since the 70s or before. Why
now? Because now, a wave of xenophobia and
racism swept the world and that was the wave
Trump rode to office. Many of his so-called
displaced workers overlap with those groups.
Add the religious evangelicals. That's how
Trump won... take away the evangelicals, take
away the racists, take away the xenophobes,
take away the screaming about the Mexican
this, the Muslims that, the Syrians, the
pandering to far-right groups who in the past
were considered the underbelly of the
country..and Trump doesn't have a chance.
This is a man with Mike Pence as vice
president. This is a man who brings people
like Steve Bannon into the administration.
That's how he won and that's how he remains
popular with his base. The rest is an
illusion
What happens to those good old days when a job could support an entire
family? Reagan happened. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, building up
our military 10 times as big as the next largest military, deregulating
banks and brokerage... Then Clinton continued to deregulate further.
Then Bush brought about more tax cuts for the rich and Obama kept his
tax policy on place. In 68, a minimum wage worker with 3 kids fell 500
dollars above the poverty line. (5,000 in today's money). Today, a
minimum wage worker with 3 kids falls 10,000 below the poverty line. And
the neocon/neoliberal answer to that is women must work, single people
need roommates and the wealthy need tax relief. What a load of crap.
The Democratic Party is still owned and operated by the Wall Street,
fossil fuel and war interests. The fact that the DNC installed Tom
Perez, who is not inspired by the idea of health care as a human right,
is telling. The DNC is the enemy of lower-middle class working (or
non-working) people. The DNC nominated the candidate least likely to win
over Trump. The Democrats need to send their bank/war/oil candidates to
the Republicans. We need a whole new truly progressive party..but since
our governement has been sold to the highest bidder, it make take some
unpleasantness in the streets to achieve power over the special
interests. And EVERYONE must vote EVERY TIME.
The problem is US elites, who are only exceptional in their stupidity.
"Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States,
but rent-seekers like the banking and the health-care sectors just
might"
Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton
The exceptionally stupid US elite are going for the easy money and
destroying their nation.
Its elites are always rigging stuff in their favour and forgetting
the reality they have hidden.
There is a huge difference between wealth creation and wealth
extraction, but today we have no idea of even the concept of wealth
extraction.
Well, one of our 21st Century Nobel prize winning economists, Angus
Deaton, has just remembered the problem.
The Classical Economists of the 19th Century were only too aware of
the two sides of capitalism, the productive side where wealth creation
takes place and the parasitic side where wealth extraction takes place.
The US was a key player in developing neoclassical economics and it's
what we use today.
It looks after the interests of the old money, idle rich rentiers.
The distinction between "earned" income (wealth creation) and
"unearned" income (wealth extraction) disappears and the once separate
areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The old money, idle rich
rentiers are now just productive members of society and not parasites
riding on the back of other people's hard work.
It happens at the end of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but
doesn't blow up until the 21st century when the exceptionally stupid US
elite have forgotten what they have done.
Monetary theory has been regressing for the last one hundred years.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial
intermediation theory
" banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the
funds out at a higher rate of interest"
Paul Krugman, 2015.
One of today's Nobel Prize winning economists spouting today's
nonsense.
Progress in monetary theory has been in the reverse direction,
leading to many of today's problems.
There was massive debt and money creation in the US leading up to the
2008 bust:
Get back to the Classical Economists to learn how you tax "unearned"
income to provide subsidized housing, healthcare, education and other
services to provide a low cost economy whose workforce isn't priced out
of the global market place.
When you understand money you can see in the money supply when Wall
Street is getting really stupid and about to blow up the economy.
Throughout history, the "people" were ruled by the powerful even if the
powerful were idiots, thieves, rapists and murderers. Times have
changed. People don't accept that anymore. But if Democrats have made a
blanket error it was in assuming that everyone sees the world as they
do, and in assuming that everyone is a rational being committed to the
ideals of a republic. Clearly that is not the case. And the "people"
want leaders, not pals. They want security. Democrats need a person who
combines the guile of a Machiavelli with the smarts of an Obama and the
steel fist of a Cromwell. Thing is, under such conditions, it's doubtful
if the "people" are governable anymore, in the sense of making decisions
based on reality as opposed to a combination of superstition, myth, and
misinformation. Oh, and vanity is an important factor: ask Susan
Sarandon and her proxy vote for Trump--she voted for Stein.
It was the DLC ("Democrats Led by Clintons") that brought the DP to its
current condition of self-satisfied atrophy and irrelevance by embracing
Davos "meritocracy" and neo-liberal economics combined with
neo-conservative foreign policy for the past 30 years. They sealed their
fate by turning the Party (DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DGA, most state committees)
into stale and pale imitations of Reagan's GOP; and Party 'leaders' are
far too comfortable with their own sense of entitlement to power and
wealth to understand either the fallacies of their tunnel vision, or the
consequences (like electing Trump and keeping the GOP in control of
Congress and most states) of their blinkered myopia.
The only hope for the DP is to let the genuine 'progressives' (aka the
socialist/green 'left') take over management of the political apparatus
because what passes for 'liberalism' these days is no longer an
electoral/policy option, at least as far as the electorate is concerned.
And all the early indications are that the from the DNC down the Party
establishment is more concerned about stamping out the Bernie Bro and Ho
heresies than defeating Republicans.
Our politicians have been brainwashed by neoliberal economists.
These
economists produce models that factor-in all the upsides to
globalisation, but fail to model any of the crippling,
expensive-to-treat consequences of shutting down entire towns in places
like Michigan or Lancashire.
They assume people live frictionless lives; that when the European
ship-building industry moves to Poland, riveters in Portsmouth can just
up-sticks and move to Gdansk with no problem. They encourage a narrative
that implies such an English riveter are lazy if he fails to seize this
opportunity.
(Let's drop a few economists in Gdansk with £100 in their pockets,
and see how their families do.)
Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific
justification for the greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its
methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists went back to the
social science faculty, where they belong.
"... Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team during the campaign and transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you guys just can't stop". ..."
Russian president calls allegations of interference in US presidential
election 'useless and harmful chatter' at St Petersburg economic forum
Share on Facebook
Close
Vladimir Putin
has said the US needs to stop the "useless and harmful chatter"
about Russian interference in the presidential election, arguing that
-
Donald Trump
's electoral strategy was entirely responsible for his victory.
The Russian president added that this "attempt to solve internal political
issues using instruments of foreign policy" was damaging international relations.
"The problem is not here, the problem is within American politics. Trump's team
was more effective in the electoral campaign," Putin told the event's moderator,
the US television presenter Megyn Kelly.
"In all honesty, I myself sometimes thought that the guy was going too far, but
it turned out he was right: he found an approach to those groups of the population
and those groups of voters he counted on, and they came and voted for him," Putin
said.
Hillary Clinton's campaign team was blaming the Russians rather than admitting
its own mistakes, he said.
"It's easier to say we are not guilty, the Russians are guilty It reminds me
of antisemitism: the Jews are guilty of everything," Putin said at the end of his
comments, which drew titters from the audience.
"If the information about the Democratic party favouring Clinton was true, is
it really important who leaked it?" he asked, echoing his previous statements on
Russian hacking.
... ... ...
--
Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team
during the campaign and
transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building
relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you
guys just can't stop".
"Do we need to give you a pill? Does anyone have a pill? Give them a pill, really,
honestly. It's surprising," he said, raising a laugh even out of the impassive
Indian PM, Narendra Modi, who was seated next to him.
Austria's chancellor, Christian Kern, and Moldova's president, Igor Dodon, also
took part in the discussion.
Besides praising Trump's electoral campaign, Putin refused to condemn the US
president's
decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord
, making light of the
issue and questioning whether the countries of the world were really "in a
position to halt climate change".
"Somehow we here aren't feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we
should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St
Petersburg], it's rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American
imperialism," Putin joked.
Putin told Kelly, in English, "Don't worry, be happy," assuring her that the
agreement would take effect in 2021, so there was still "plenty of time to reach
an agreement".
It wasn't clear what he was referring to in this comment, since the accord took
effect in November 2016.
One area where Putin was critical of Trump's policy was regarding the US
president's demand that Nato members raise their military spending to 2% of GDP.
"If they aren't planning to attack anyone, then why increase spending? That of
course worries us," Putin said.
ID269211 Ima Right
,
29 Apr 2017 12:19 According to NYT on Obama $400K speech, Obamas already have $12 million plus
receiving $80 million for their biography/books.
"... Tell people about how the Russians stole the election for Trump and everyone knows you're just reiterating a Beltway talking point. Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. Remind people of the ways in which the Democrats have reoriented themselves around affluent, tasteful white-collar people and you hear a chorus of angry yesses; talk about how the Democrats live to serve the so-called "creative class" and a murmur of recognition sweeps the room. ..."
"... People in the labor movement that I met in my turn around the midwest expressed complicated feelings about Donald Trump. On the one hand, everyone understands that he is an obvious scoundrel and they fear that his administration will bring about (via a possible supreme court ruling against public-sector unions) an epic defeat for organized labor. ..."
"... Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific justification for the greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists went back to the social science faculty, where they belong. ..."
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at the economic disasters that have
befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some
lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what
happened last November a little more likely.
Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned around and told working-class
people that their misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education, that the only answer
for them was a lot of student loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did
this they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest,
in the manner of the New York Times , is not the answer to this problem. Listening to the voices
of the good people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the answer, either. Cursing those
bad people for the stupid way they voted is an even lousier idea.
What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not enough
to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need to understand
that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material harm to millions
of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different next time. And
then they need to deliver.
They are already failing on this front. Consider the idea, currently approaching revealed truth
among American liberals, that last November's electoral upset was in fact an act of political vandalism
attributable to some violation of fair play by the Russians or the FBI director; that it had no greater
historical significance than does an ordinary act of shoplifting.
I met few who are actually buying that line. Tell people about how the Russians stole the election
for Trump and everyone knows you're just reiterating a Beltway talking point. Mention how the Democrats
betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's board immediately lights
up with enthusiastic callers. Remind people of the ways in which the Democrats have reoriented themselves
around affluent, tasteful white-collar people and you hear a chorus of angry yesses; talk about how
the Democrats live to serve the so-called "creative class" and a murmur of recognition sweeps the
room.
People in the labor movement that I met in my turn around the midwest expressed complicated feelings
about Donald Trump. On the one hand, everyone understands that he is an obvious scoundrel and they
fear that his administration will bring about (via a possible
supreme court ruling against public-sector unions) an epic defeat for organized labor.
In the union hall of the Steelworkers local that represents workers at the Indianapolis Carrier
plant – a union hall where you might expect Trump to be venerated – I spotted instead a flyer depicting
the billionaire president with his famous pompadour on fire. The headline: "Lying Con and Volatile
Gasbag is Enemy of the Working Class."
On the other hand, Trump at least pretended to be a friend of the working class, and it was working-class
people in this part of America who turned against the Democrats and helped delivered him into the
White House. By a certain school of thought, this should make working-class people the Number One
swing group for Democrats to court.
Of course it isn't working out that way. So far, liberal organs seem far less interested in courting
such voters than they do in scolding them, insulting them for their coarse taste and the hate for
humanity they supposedly cherish in their ignorant hearts.
Ignorance is not the issue, however. Many midwesterners I met share an outlook that is profoundly
bleak. They believe that the life has gone out of this region; indeed, they fear that a civilization
based on making things is no longer sustainable.
They tell me about seniors falling prey to Fox News syndrome and young people who are growing
up without hope. And just about everyone I talked to believes that the national Democratic party
has abandoned them. They are frustrated beyond words with the stupidity of the party's leadership.
One thing we must never forget about the midwest, however, is that radicalism lurks just beneath
the surface. The region has always swung back and forth between contentment and outrage; between
Chicago Tribune-style business-worship and Eugene Debs-style socialism. I was reminded of this one
night in Minneapolis, when a friend told me the story of a local Teamsters strike in 1934, a conflict
that briefly plunged the Twin Cities into something akin to civil war.
I have no doubt that people in this part of America would respond enthusiastically to a populist
message that addressed their unhappy situation – just look, for example, at the soaring
popularity of Bernie Sanders.
As things have unfolded thus far, however, our system seems designed to keep such an alternative
off the table. The choice we are offered instead is between Trumpian fake populism and a high-minded
politics of personal virtue. Between a nomenklatura of New Economy winners and a party of traditional
business types, willing to say anything to get elected and (once that is done) to use the state to
reward people like themselves. The public's frustration with this state of affairs, at least as I
heard it on my midwestern trip, is well-nigh overwhelming.
The way I see it, the critical test for our system will come late next year. The billionaire great-maker
in the Oval Office has already turned out to be an incompetent buffoon, and his greatest failures
are no doubt yet to come. By November 2018, the winds of change will be in full hurricane shriek,
and unless the Democratic Party's incompetence is even more profound than it appears to be, the D's
will sweep to some sort of mid-term triumph.
But when "the resistance" comes into power in Washington, it will face this question: this time
around, will Democrats serve the 80% of us that this modern economy has left behind? Will they stand
up to the money power? Or will we be invited once again to feast on inspiring speeches while the
tasteful gentlemen from JP Morgan foreclose on the world?
Writing that Trump is an 'incompetent buffoon' only highlights the foolishness of the Washington
establishment, and why millions see the media with disdain.
While you may dislike the man, you still have to contend with the fact that the guy has been successful,
and he is a byproduct of a system that rewards success. It is similar to the derision that Obama
experienced when he claimed that 'you didn't build that."
Historically hard work and self determination has been a shared American value, and during the
campaign we saw one who skated through process and the other who worked his butt off to win. To
dismiss this American value as incompetent and buffoonery is the height of elitism from a pointed
headed pencil pusher.
Reply Share
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick - >
Report
-> mmercier0921
->
deborahmconner
,
29 Apr
2017 15:32 Americans of age are not bolshevik's. What is killing the rat party is reality
that the immigrants here tend to want freedom or anarchy, not old communists loading over them.
The stunted domestic children's have proven mostly... dysfunctional at the political levels so
far, and a burden on us all.
The only hope for the Democrat party at this point is economic colapse and war... their only
remaining tried and true methods.
Mr. Frank may be overestimating the Democrats' chances next year. My senator is one of the most
liberal but already this year she has voted for new sanctions on Iran and admitting Montenegro
into NATO.
I'm seriously considering staying home on election day next year -- for the first time in my
life.
The turmoil in financial markets was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards
for subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 through 2007. That's when Republicans controlled
all branches of government. The share of mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie during that time
went from 48% to 24%, being eclipsed by private mortgage banks.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission allowed the nation's largest financial institutions
to "self-regulate;" taking the cops off the beat. Unregulated mortgage brokers sold subprime loans
aided by the NINA (No Income No Assets) program. Major financial institutions packaged those bad
mortgages into securities and sold them as low-risk investments.
In 2007, FOX News taking heads, Art Laffer, Ben Stein and others laughed themselves silly over
an impending housing collapse they had championed. They said "It can't happen," claiming lasting
wealth had been created by subprime loans. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_yw0kq3MM
First of all, the idea that the nationalist right is exclusively 'Nazi', or that Trump is a 'white
supremacist', is more than a bit silly, but regardless:
My argument has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's tax cuts (which, fwiw, I'm hugely opposed
to).
--
As an outside observer I am not well enough informed to dig deep into regional issues in America,
but on a national level many can see the some root causes.
The US has a political system that does not monitor and control election spending by parties or
candidates. You get the best people that money can buy, not the best people.
You have an electoral "commission" that is a privately run club of 2 parties whose stated aim
is to keep it like that, and do so by strangling any dissent at birth.
You also have a media circus with players like Rupert Murdoch involved and wherever he goes you
find mischief, spin, downright lies all mobilised to get you all to believe in whatever movement
is generating him the most cash.
You also have a large and powerful group of dark suits that "advise" the administration, whoever
it is, on foreign policy and how to control, manipulate or even overthrow, foreign governments
of countries that have resources America needs.
As a result, your idea of living in a Demoracy is just that, a nice idea.
You can argue with me all day long, but the fact remains, that I have watched all of the above
actually happen over a 70 year period, with my own eyes, while still of sound mind.
Much the same is happening in the UK too, creating diabolical levels of inequality that are destroying
large sections of society.
It will get much worse before it gets much better. Will it get better before the planet shrugs
humans off it though?
not like electing Hillary would have helped us. she's just as complacently sure that neoliberalism
works. well, yeah, for the billionaires it does. hasn't done us much good though.
I'm not supporting Trump's election. but as far as economic problems, neither of the two main
candidates offered us much of anything but more of the same.
not like electing Hillary would have helped us. she's just as complacently sure that neoliberalism
works. well, yeah, for the billionaires it does. hasn't done us much good though.
I'm not supporting Trump's election. but as far as economic problems, neither of the two main
candidates offered us much of anything but more of the same.
They won the popular vote ONLY because of Democrats overwhelming strength in Los Angeles, California
& New York City...if you remove the votes for BOTH Hillary & Donald from those two regions, Trump
would have won by 2 million votes. That alone is why the men who wrote the US Constitution instituted
the Electoral College. It was to keep a few large cities from choosing the president and essentially
ignoring the rest of the country. It was called the Virginia Compromise...
I'm an analytics professional that worked on Obama's primary & re-election where I saw first hand
a robust machine learning process. Electoral politics is so insanely tribal because you're seeing
voter outcomes reflect voter self image based on their general zip code/geographic living space.
Electorally we don't know how Bernie would have performed because it's unknown how the oppo
research would have impacted older voters outcomes. This is even harder to predict because of
the $$ spent required to run in a general. You can assume Bernie would have gotten 60% of Millennials
instead of Hillary's 55% (matching Obama's number in 2012). However; we don't know what happens
in the reverse manner.
Hillary had entrenched Democratic loyalty with urban blanks/latinos/Asians /Jews/White educated
women. Because Latino/Asian turnout rates increased from 46% to 56% Clinton basically outperformed
Obama in ever major metro area except ( Detroit / Milwaukee). That's because black turnout rates
dropped from 64% to 54%. And these two metros are heavily AA .
Hillary slightly outperformed Obama in Philly metro; but she was brutalized in literally all
these heavily white working class areas.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn."
Yup! And the means doing away with public sector unions in their present form, it means securing
the borders, it means getting big banks and wall street under control, it means dropping the left
wingnut social policies and getting the government out of peoples lives, not the other way 'round.
Ain't gonna happen.
The liberal/progressive leftist totalitarians are in charge of the party, and unless they change
their ways, as previously described, they are going to wander in the wilderness for a very long
time.
It's fine to blame the Democratic Party and let it go at that, but let's frame the problem somewhat
more clearly: the United States hasn't managed its transition from industrial capitalism to
post-industrial capitalism wisely, or really at all.
The Republican Party? Well, everyone pretty much expects them to act like worshipers of the
Great God Mammon; they wrongly think any kind of capitalism is perfect, so they offer no modifications
to a situation that has left millions of Americans behind.
The Democrats? You would expect them at least to show some appreciation of the problem and
to go beyond lip service when it comes to economic justice and opportunity for all. But you would
be mostly mistaken in that, since they have (if at times ambivalently) embraced the shifting lay
of the land -- an attitude that amounts to a species of fatalism. That leaves them little to offer
except support for some important but not fully curative improvements in American life: support
for equality for LGBTQI people, for example. That support, proper though it is, then gets slammed
by vicious, sneering Republicans as elitism or extremism. The truth is that if the Dems appear
to be all about such issues, it's only because right-wing morons oppose them with primitive ferocity
at every turn, making the Dems' steadfast belief in fairness look like a mere obsession with "boutique"
issues that only directly affect very small segments of the population. So the answer isn't for
Democrats to drop their support for civic and human rights for all people -- that isn't the problem.
This is a genuine dilemma because the pain the country's going through has fundamentally to
do with our economic system and the technological shifts to it, and we really aren't going to
jettison that system. But I suggest that the Democrats are better positioned to become the great
"rearticulators" of why we are in the fix we are in and of a more compassionate social system
that won't ignore the working class, won't embrace some kind of neoliberal fatalism that writes
people off as "collateral damage" of an inevitable shift.
The Democratic Party has gradually become the party of the status quo and business as usual instead
of the progressive-- working people's party-- it use to be under Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
Even Obamacare is a concept originally conceived by the Republicans to force all Americans into
the arms of the private health insurance companies.
Instead of more trickle down economics, Democrats should be trying to focus on creating a worker's
paradise in order to re-energize the American economy:
1. A 32 hour work week (overtime beyond 32 hours):
2. Up to six weeks of annual Federally mandated paid vacation
3. Reduction of individual income tax to just 1% for individuals that make less than $60,000
a year
4. Employer payment of all Federal payroll taxes for all employees that make less than $60,000
a year
5. A $1000 a year workers rebate from the Federal government if you work full time or part
time or employ full time or part time workers
6. Federal infrastructure program providing matching funds for cities that want to build affordable
urban-- rental housing-- for senior citizens and the working class families and individuals, who
don't own their own home who make less than $60,000 a year.
7. Federal and employer financed medical savings accounts for all American citizens
8. High tariffs (15% to 100%) on all imports coming in from nations that are not free and democratic
(China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Low tariffs (1% to 10%) on imports from nations that
are free and democratic. How Democrats could have ever gone along with allowing a fascist state
like China to have full and free trading access to the American economy is almost incomprehensible
(and it also cost Americans more than 3 million jobs)!
I'm at a loss as to why anyone would think voting for Trump conveys a desire for these things.
He has spent his entire career taking advantage of working class people who had the misfortune
to be employed by him, and he was literally fighting charges for running a fraudulent, for-profit
university during the campaign.
Lets review the key points of Democratic politics as they now pronounce it (through words and
action)
1 - Save the planet - translation - regulate any and all forms of energy to be too expensive
then subsidize renewable energy. This means a few major companies will win huge government contracts
to put up windmills while, power plant operators, miners, natural gas workers and countless supporting
industries go dark.
2 - Identity Politics - Translation - Vast swaths of America are understood only in context
of their race, gender (chosen or otherwise) or political perspective. They will be administered
according to an as yet unpublished preference chart favoring some over others. Meaning that individuals
don't matter and needs don't matter. Only that you fit into some defined category where political
messaging will tell you why your oppressed and that only democrats can free you.
3 - Free Trade Agreements - In short - how to off shore manufacturing to cheap labor countries.
That one is very simple.
4 - Sanctuary Cities - People who arrived into this country illegally will be protected from
deportation, even identifcation as illegal regardless of the law. This reduces the cost of labor
for less skilled workers and drives up costs - which drive up taxes to provide services. In point
of fact California is in the process of creating a single payer healthcare system that will provide
free (only if your don't earn and income) healthcare to anybody in California - no questions asked.
What is missing? Jobs. There are zero plans to bring back jobs. The coasties don't care about
manufacturing. They only buy the highest quality imports with the right labels on them anyway.
Their answer - why more government "programs" designed to robe Peter to pay Paul. Job training
for jobs that don't exist where people live, and often disappeared years ago.
I am entirely sympathetic to Frank's point of view. My question is what kind of economic policy
would help the working class people he is talking about. I'm reading Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of
Revolution (1789-1848) and here's what he has to say about the mechanization of the cotton industry
in Britain: "Everywhere weaving was a mechanized a generation after spinning, and everywhere,
incidentally, the handloom weavers died a lingering death, occasionally revolting against their
awful fate, when industry no longer had any need for them." You can't stop technological progress.
Nor (although I'm less sure of this) does it seem like a good idea for governments to intervene
in preventing production from migrating to the countries where it is cheapest. What public policy
can do is offer displaced persons a choice: government support to go back to school to learn a
skill that will make you employable; or government employment at a job that uses the skills you
already have on projects that the private sector would not undertake but which fulfills a social
need (from infrastructure to building affordable housing in low income areas to driving a bus
from poor neighborhoods to jobs). Financed, of course, by higher taxes on the wealthy.
Thomas Frank is at least a liberal who recognizes that the Democrats offer nothing to the working
class, but he fails to really see how Democratic policies have made states under Democratic governance
less attractive to those businesses that would actually hire the working class. He make make snide
remarks about lousy trade deals, yet many foreign car manufacturers have set up some of the most
sophisticated plants in the US, but in southern states. In fact, US manufacturing output is near
all time highs, but it is ever more automated. Even some rust belt states, under Republican governance,
are attracting industry back to these states.
The Dems really crises is going to come when blue collar Hispanics conclude that their economic
interests are not dissimilar to those of blue collar whites. They too might conclude that their
best course is to deal with those who might actually hire them as opposed to those that will never
hire them but who want to set the terms whereby others might. That will surely dash the idea (or
fantasy) that changing demographics portend a coming brown progressive paradise led by old white
hippies.
Meritocracy?
The best of the best of the best?
Not for the Smugatocratic World Rigging Nepotistic 'Davos' Elite!
(Busy "Late Night" Offices)
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 1" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth My Dear Boy I really need you to do me a solid
you remember my Granddaughter Brittany?
Seth Myers
Ummm .Not really .?
Who is this?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
No matter .You met her last year at Davos
Seth Myers
Ahhh .I didn't actually go to Davos last year?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Well she just graduated from Emerson Gawd knows what they learn there?
AAAAAANYWAAAYS .
this whole "Clinton Kerfuffle" has kind of put us in a little bind
Seth Myers
Oh really?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
And Britt had her dear little heart set on interning with Hilly and Billy
Seth Myers
Oh....She did?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Now, she'd really like to work on your show
Seth Myers
My show?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Oh .She's a really good writer
Seth Myers
Writer .Wow .Why not just host?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
You think? Well, maybe?
K Thanks Gottah Run Love Yah' Bunches Britt will just be so thrilled!
See you at Davos .
Seth Myers
Wait I'm not go
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 2" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth .My Dear Boy I really, really need you to do me a solid you remember my Granddaughter...Gemma?
Special interests are intertwined with the Dems as much as they are with Repubs now, that's what's
changed. The article speaks of the neoliberal policies that are destroying the Democratic party
(deregulation, pro-corporate/anti-worker policies).
Yes, Republicans do those things and always have, but the point is that the Dems now do them
too. And they need to step away from neoliberal policies like that if they want to be relevant
again.
The 1970s were the beginning of the end because oil was no longer cheap, and our factories were
in northern cities and both ran on oil. Unions didn't help with strikes and corruption. Unions
were also divided on race. Manufacturing was more expensive in terms of energy and labor in the
North than in the South. Since then paper mills and auto plants have followed areas where unions
never caught on, the growing season for trees is short, and which have mild winters. This is logic,
not NAFTA.
Now we glorify unions of a hazy past, but then they seemed to have gotten too big for their
britches. Midwesterners voted for Reagan and neoliberal policies back then, which is ignored in
this discussion.
NAFTA, passed under George HW Bush, and signed when Clinton was new in office, recognized that
industry was changing. It also created new markets for agriculture, which is also a Midwest product,
let it not be forgotten. Oh, but agriculture was Republican territory. Which is why it was passed
under Bush.
NAFTA isn't the issue but is an excuse. The refusal of the auto industry to wake up until they
had to in the recent recession or refusal to face the cost of energy that fueled it is the issue.
It couldn't have been the companies where people could work for $25/hr with only a H.S. Diploma??
No, it must be those "others" from far away, right?
While it is true that Hillary and the Neoliberal wing of the Democrats has prevailed, until 2016
the Neoliberals were the only wing of the Republicans. Trump can talk a good game offer some hope
to the Rust Belt Hopeless, but does anyone really believe the commercial interests that have been
the backbone of the GOP since Lincoln are going to let Trump cancel NAFTA, reimpose tariffs and
cut of the flow of cheap labor?
No doubt about it, the industrial towns of the Midwest have been savaged by Globalization and
the wages of a lot on essentially unskilled worker have fallen behind but there are a lot of people
who have benefited from it as well, like everyone who shops at Walmart or drives a car.
How much more are you willing to pay for "stuff" so that somebody in Youngstown Ohio can get
the $25 an hour job he thought would be waiting for him when he graduated from H.S.?
Changes in the world economy create winners and losers and losers seek relief from the federal
government. They don't want help navigating the changed situation they find themselves in, they
want things back to the way they were before.
I equate neoliberalism with MBA NATION. The stupidity of book learning the economics of numbers
but not of their effects on human life.
I recall hearing an interview with an economist who was dismissing something Trump said about
how he'd handle certain things in the economy. "Sure," the economist huffed, "It would put more
money in average people's pockets but it wouldn't improve the GDP or the economy as a whole."
The interview didn't call the "expert" out on this nonsense. It stopped me in my tracks (I
was walking past the office lunch room). As a citizen, I would very much like to be living in
a world where we put more money in my neighbours' pockets (as well as my own, of course) than
watch it magnetize to the rich and ever-more-powerful, making the big numbers look impressive
while the average person abandons all hope of a decent future for themselves and their children.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I will say that I am an MBA NATION loather. Free trade that
lines the pockets of rich people and robs citizens of the right to intervene or shift or change
the deal is obscene.
"What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not
enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They
need to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has
done material harm to millions of their own former constituents."
Yes of course. But that's not gonna happen. Demanding such a thing is demanding that rational
self-interested individuals go against their entrenched self-interest, which goes against everything
held sacred in an enlightened market economy and against the sacred neoclassical tenet of the
rational homo economicus . You don't wish to be perceived as an apostate now Mr. Frank,
do you? It is in the interest of the operatives and functionaries of the party to maintain the
current status quo by acting in the interest of Wall Street and Silicon Valley and other top economic
players to the detriment of their base.
The Democratic party took a drubbing from the right with the dawn of the Reagan era. The emergence
of the so-called Third Way in the 1990s was an acknowledgement of this defeat. Clinton's major
political innovation was to secure a source of funding for the Democrats by prostrating before
the financial sector. This is a formula that has proven successful, and no Democratic candidate
will deviate from this script as long as it continues to be so. Essentially, the Democratic party
transformed itself from the "loser" representative of unions, teachers, and ordinary folk in general,
to a "kinder, gentler" version of the Republican party. The they-have-nowhere else-to-go strategy
was quite rational and has worked for more than two decades, and will conceivably work for at
least four more presidential election cycles. However, the initial givenness of the Democratic
base in 1992 was a finite source of electoral fuel, and as the election of Trump has shown this
resource is nearing depletion.
"One thing we must never forget about the midwest, however, is that radicalism lurks just
beneath the surface."
Please, that ship sailed a long time ago, at least a century to be more precise. This is red-state
Heartland territory now through-and-through, respect the empirical data.
"The choice we are offered instead is between Trumpian fake populism and a high-minded politics
of personal virtue. Between a nomenklatura of New Economy winners and a party of traditional
business types, willing to say anything to get elected and (once that is done) to use the state
to reward people like themselves."
To use a quantitative scale, the choice offered to the non-elite voters is between a zero-to-slightly-positive
socially liberal neoliberalism, and a negative socially conservative neoliberalism. Put another
way, economically the choice is between the nothing of the Democrats and the worse-than-nothing
of the Republicans. The calm and stability at the center of wealth and power masks the constant
rattling sound of the lives perturbed and dislocated by the dominant economic forces. At this
point, the relation of the non-elite voters to the D-R duopoly resembles sadomasochism. Or perhaps
the working people voting for Trump is a form of supplication before their god: "Shoot me now
Lord, please."
To be more generous and grant the Heartland left-behind a measure of agency and rationality,
they - and one group in particular, the Reagan Democrats - took a chance on his and his descendants'
rhetoric of the shining city upon a hill, and when they realized that the end result was the loss
of jobs and diminution of their standards of living and that of their offspring, they graciously
accepted the verdict and had the fortitude and decency to bear the burden of their own decision.
There is nothing the matter with Kansas, the only thing that needs attention is the inconsistency
between its pronunciation and that of Arkansas.
Thomas Frank offers an advice to democrats - break up with your neoliberal fallacies and embrace
Bernie Sanders. It clearly means a break up with their true (core) base - big money. Such choice
is too stark, hard to believes they are willing or capable of making it.
Rather than pleading with them, I could offer a better option - reject republico-cratic duopoly
(and its enterprising scoundrels) altogether, and embrace an American version of La France insoumise
"All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking."
Yes, originally, but the Clinton-third way wing of the Democratic Party went along with it and
adopted neoliberalism lite. That's the problem. Instead of offering an alternative vision to what
Republicans were doing, they offered "me, too."
The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan. Reagan did the Savings & Loan
deregulation which led to the S&L bailout under G.W. Bush during which they prosecuted over 1,000
bank executives and got convictions including five sitting senators with four forced resignations.
After Clinton did the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and Obama prosecuted zero,
let me say that again, zero, bank executives and provided $9 trillion in bailout liquidity.
--
They can offer the illusion with the proper candidate but with the same congressmen and senators
that currently hold the seats none of the substance.
--
Take Amtrak between Chicago and Washington DC and witness wreckage of heartland industry along
a corridor 800 miles long. People still live there, forgotten. Bernie Sanders is not finished.
Listen to him; and put yourself up for election locally, on a Park District board; or a Township
position; as an Election Judge or for County or State office. And listen to your neighbors, who
are suffering. Then do something about it. When I ran for State Representative, the Democratic
Party sent me a highlighted map instead of a check for my campaign. The map showed "70% Republican"
voting registration in my State Representative district. No Party cash for my campaign was forthcoming.
The only way to change this Gerrymandering is to be on-hand in the State House following the next
decennial census in 2020. It will be "too late" to do anything -- again -- unless "we" change
the Party; and the Party changes the re-districting scam. Bernie Sanders is right about pitching
in to re-shape and re-form the Democratic Party. The Party, as constructed, is passé... and as
hollowed-out as the miles and miles of decrepit buildings with thousands of gaping, broken windows
that lie between Chicago and DC. Go see the devastation for yourself. Then get serious about answers.
Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red State
inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies that
appeal to the majority of people.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but Identity Politics has FAILED. The Dems are not
going to cobble together some sort of Ruling Coalition out of Transgendered people and urban people
of color. That's an insane strategy of hoping you will win national elections by appealing to
25% or less of the population of whom only half that number actually vote if you are lucky.
I'm not saying abandon those struggles. Under a just system those struggles will continue and
prevail - the Constitution guarantees that unless you get dishonest justices on the Supreme Court
- which seems more likely the more national elections you blow. Democrats need to stop worrying
about narrow single issues like that and focus on developing a BROAD national strategy to appeal
to the Majority of Americans.
So says the guy from Punjab who is NOT a poorly educated white person and who has voted Democrat
since 1980.
There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product
of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan administration.
The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching from Right/Center
to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism as 'socialism',
'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party of neoliberal
economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money and they are
the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up and run with
it instead of calling the the BS that it is.
The problem with the Rust Belt states is that they keep on electing Republican state governments.
These fail to deliver on anything useful for working people -- they're more interested in entrenching
their power by tweaking the elections -- but then people turn to the Federal government as if
this is some kind of savior capable of turning around their fortunes overnight.
Anyway, don't take my word for it. Just keep electing those regressive state legislators (and
keep drinking that tainted water....).
Great comment on the article, but I think even you have been kind in your criticism of it. I can
only hope that the writer started out with the intention of saying that while the GOP and their
rich and big business political patrons are responsible for the impoverishment of those in the
article, the Democrats have missed out on messaging and on more specific policies that addresses
those wrongs committed against a voting block they can own. Instead the entire piece is written
as though the Democrats have earned the scorn and anger of these voters. One can argue the Democrats
have failed to focus more on the plight of these voters, but they are NOT the cause of these voters'
plight; and there is nothing in this piece to make that distinction or about the irony of why
these same voters flock to a political party primarily responsible for what has happened to them.
In fact consider this below from the article:
"Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's
board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. "
Yes, that is right! The political anomaly that Trump is can be be explained by the successful
exploitation of the improvised classes by media outlets that voice these voters' anger to acquire
a capture audience and then lay the blame for what has happened to them on immigrants & liberals.
You never hear anything on those outlets about the unholy triad of the GOP political class, big
business and media outlets in their orbit. I don't need to drive through these flyover states
to know they are hurting; and I don't need to sit down with them to know they are real human beings
with a great deal in common with me or to know that despite their general decency they are full
of misplaced anger and resentment.
I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think
that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could
not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were
instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly
to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since
they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers.
Interesting he choices of examples for how liberals let the mid west down. Republican president
Reagan deregulated S&Ls with predictable awful results. Republicans under Clinton (they controlled
the Senate and house ) when Glass Steagsll was repealed. Republic Phil Gramm also rescinded the
AntiBucket Shop Law which loosed the disaster of the naked CDS,
Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like
a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused
to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox
ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy.
It was Republican Sen. Phil Gramm who said in hearings on CSPAN that these instruments of financial
mass destruction (Warren Buffet's words) were too complicated to understand and therefore should
not be regulated.
Republicans wanted to free up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy subprime even NINJA loans and
made it so.
Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy YES.
Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already displayed
financial incompetence at Harvard, YES.
But, it is republicans who either drove the bad financial ideas or controlled them. Republicans
who support IRS rules and their laws that promote off shoring jobs and stashing cash untaxed off
shore.
Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, Bush41 - even Nixon - would not know these people.
Oh, and as for the rest of the party and its defeats: A quick look at the numbers show that Democrats
keep losing not because voters are switching to the Republican brand, but because they no longer
bother to vote for Democrats who are just going to shiv them in the back with Republican economic
policies.
Reply Share
But now liberals and the Democratic Party are to get the lion's share of the blame for everything?
As I've said on numerous occasions in the past: The reason Trump beat Hillary is the same reason
Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries: Voters knew her and what she stood for -- and so were willing
to take a chance on the other candidate.
Thank you for the Abramson reminder -- as a retired journalist I know the importance of providing
clear and accurate information to the general public. While Abramson and Frank and others are
writing Opinion in the Guard and elsewhere, too many people do not understand positioning and
propaganda. Media must make money to stay in business and often it is opinion writers/tv hosts
etc that generate interest and coin to keep the words rolling and the money coming in.
It is especially ironic as wages are cut, jobs disappear, cost of living rises so fewer people
can afford to subscribe or pay for actual news and information. Not to mention the political idiocy
of reducing school funding so that the electorate knows nothing of history or how politics works.
Trump wants to take us back to Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher years that left us with trillion
dollar deficits and decimation of the middle class that is now on the downward slide to actual
poverty...
No, it is a crap comment. From the neo-liberal 'pseudo science' that economics supposedly is (almost
forgot to use the word neo-liberal, a must these days to make your point) , to the greed and the
rapacity of the "one percenters".
Such a simple problem isn't it? Let's just go back in time rather than find more creative and
up-to-date solution for the problems there are. Globalisation isn't going to go away, the world
is too small a place. Globalisation has created problems for people, but many more people have
benefitted from it.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on
some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely. "
---
As someone who's middle aged, I am getting sick and tired of this historical revisionist nonsense
that all the country's woes and economic climate can be mostly pinned on the liberals and that
somehow, it's something that they did wrong that is the reason why they "lost" constituents in
the Midwest. Someone can peddle this nonsense over and over again with the smug belief that everyone
on on the internet is too young to know whether what he's saying is true. But there are some of
us "old folks" who are also on the internet and as an old folk, I have no issues calling out this
article out for the nonsense that it is.
Everything that is going on now in terms of jobs can be 100% attributable to Reaganomics--period,
end of. It's nothing to do with liberals. It's 100% to do with the devastating rippling effect
that his neoliberal policies has had on the country since the 1980s, only made 100x worse by Republican
pols who have been further carrying out his neoliberalist agenda to full effect for the past several
decades.
It was under Reagan that the country began experiencing mass layoffs (euphemistically called
"downsizing"). It was under Reagan that corporations began slashing benefits, cutting wages and
closing up shop to ship thousands of jobs overseas. It was under Reagan that the middle class
American dream died--aka, the expectation that if got a diploma, you could start working for a
company full time straight out of college, work for decades with decent benefits and perks, save
up enough money to buy a house and retire with a generous pension. Gone. All gone.
Remember the "Buy American" grassroots campaign? That started in the 1980s, precisely because
under Reagan, the country had relied increasingly on imported goods at the expense of domestic
manufacturing. Here's an actual article from 1989 that shows you that the roots of everything
going on now started decades ago. It's actually a defeatist article telling people to *stop* wasting
their time to get everyone to "Buy American" because it had become virtually impossible to buy
American-made goods.
As for the idea that there's always been a staunchly"Democratic" following in the Midwest that
has been "lost" because of something that the party is doing wrong and that this caused them to
turn to populism? False. It may have been true a very long time ago that this constituency has
been staunchly Democratic and not amenable to populism, but not recently. It has voted on populist
platforms before. Remember "welfare queens?" Remember "Willie Horton?" Willie Horton, the black
bogeyman, was the "bad hombres" of today.
In addition, this constituency has been increasingly voting against its best interests for
decades since Reagan was voted into office. Why? Because demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and the
large number of puppets at Rupert Murdoch's vast media empire have been selling them a bill of
goods since the 1990s that the reason why they're becoming poorer is that liberals are giving
all their "white" hard-earned money to shiftless, lazy blacks and immigrants and losing out to
them because of affirmative action. In the famous words of South Park, "THEY TOOK R JERBS" and
"IT'S ALL DUH LIBRUHL'S FAULTS!!"
This constituency has developed such a deep-seated hatred and loathing for liberals because
of the demagogues at FOX or news radio that even when Michael Moore directly spoke to their plight
in Roger and Me, they derided him as a typical Communist-loving, anti-Capitalist pinko. Because,
you see, according to FOX demagogues, calling out rich corporate fatcats who also happen to be
white is attacking white people, a form of class warfare and anti-Capitalist.
Given all that, for someone to try to paint a picture that this constituency would otherwise
be embracing liberalism if not for the Democratic Party adopting an "ideology" is laughable. They
were never going to win because anything short of ranting, "They took r jerbs" and "Damned brown
people on welfare and illegals stealing taking all our money" was going to cost them the election.
Bottom line, the Midwest was never the liberals' or Democratic Party's constituency to lose,
and Reagan is behind all of the economic devastation that the region is experiencing. Anyone else
trying to say otherwise is just using spin and historical revisionism.
That's exactly what America needs -- another neocon/neolib, just like Macron! As if Obama and
the Clintons hadn't been neocon/neolib enough!
Reply Share
Frank is right that the white working class in the Midwestern states have been the swing votes
for presidential elections since the Reagan election of 1984, when the white Democratic South
became more fully the white Republican South. But he is wrong in not recognizing that the Democratic
Party has three major constituents and it needs all of them to win elections and to do the progressive
things while in office that would help people like those in the Midwest. Democrats need the votes
of the white working class, but also of race/ethnic minorities, and the "new class" professionals
and others. The problem is that these groups have been fighting with each other since the 1960s,
continually undermining the chances for Democrats to win. In the period of the Civil Rights Movement
and the Vietnam War, students and professionals joined with race and ethnic minorities to challenge
the influence of the unionists, big city mayors, and white working class in the Democratic Party,
which is what gave us Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Through this period, predictably, more white
working class people either stopped voting or moved to the Republican Party. In the 2016 election,
with the Bernie Sanders influence, students and professionals began to attack the influence of
race and ethnic minorities (and women?) in the Democratic Party, ostensibly in support of the
white working class over "identity politics," with the result that we got Trump. Globalization
is a difficult and complex issue, but the reality is that since the 1970s the U.S. economy has
not been able to prosper, nor the working class jobs that it requires, by selling things only
in the U.S. We have to be in global markets and integrated with other economies around the world
and that requires trade deals that balance our interests against those of other countries. This
has generated winners and losers in the economy, and it will continue to do so. While it may not
be possible to bring back the same kinds of jobs that pay a middle class wage for those with not
much education, it should be possible to create new jobs that pay a middle class wage and to invest
in education and skill development, infrastructure, and a welfare state that sustains people through
periods of disruption and transformation. The Republican Party and the New Right that took it
over are fighting to the death to undermine what is left of the social safety net to force people
to take whatever jobs are available at exploitative wages, and they have been successful exploiting
anti-government sentiment by using racial animosity and more recently anti-immigrant hysteria.
The right has been successful because those on the left who should support the Democratic Party
and then fight for more progressive policies within it just keep fighting each other and in the
last election delivered Trump by voting third party (along with gutting of the Voting Rights Act,
voter suppression, Russian influences that helped Sanders and vilified Hillary Clinton, the rogue
FBI, Citizens United, and so on). The only option for the left in a two party system is to support
the Democratic Party. Staying home or voting third party is a vote for your worst enemy. France
is experiencing the same thing, with the left candidate refusing to support the more centrist
candidate against Le Pen. We all need to learn how to form coalitions and to keep our focus on
winning elections, not winning ideological battles.
Umm, the real goals of labor unions have been beach houses and new SUVs for labor leadership.
Unions have been adept at screwing over their memberships since at least the 1970s -- no wonder
they keep supporting anti-union Dims.
Maddow has to defend the Corporate Democratic Establishment any way she can. Maddow to my knowledge
has never mentioned:
Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta,
the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, for lobbying
its interests in the United States.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought
to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with
the Department of Justice. The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses,
on a contract from March through September 2016.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/russias-largest-bank-confirms-hiring-podesta-group-lobby-ending-sanctions
Sorry Mr. Cuban but Barney has a point. Sympathy for criminals? How about a system that extracts
wealth by taking family members that have made a mistake hostage. Private prisons are incredibly
corrupt. They pay their guards $7 an hour, barely train them and then throw them into a hellhole
of starved and abused prisoners, prisoners who's families are charged $2-5 a MINUTE to talk to
them! Prisoners who are charged for laundry, for new underwear, for sanitary napkins, for extra
food anything they can, they charge them for, all to meet a higher quarterly profit. If they work,
prisoners get only .25 an hour! Menawhile, the items they make get a proud MADE IN AMERICA sticker
and sold at a premium netting the company MORE money. This is a direct threat to DEMOCRACY! Why
not contract our work to prisons with no liability and infinitesimal wages to lower costs. Gee,
doesn't that sounds like a threat to low skilled workers?!
Everything matters because EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED!!!
-
Very little differences between neoncons and neoliberals these days. They're both in Goldman Saacs
corner, they both support war even when they claim otherwise during their election... Both laugh
at the idea of emulating countries that offer free Healthcare, free college, higher minimum wage
and lower cost of living. Bush tax policy = Obama tax policy. Bush stance on war = Obama stance
on war. Whats the difference? Abortion and gun rights. That's pretty much all thats different.
Pro militarist, world police, globalists who favor a regressive tax system. Don't like it? Don't
vote... You have no say in this debate.
Yes, the Democratic Party are essentially corporate shills who talk pretty to the poor and oppressed
and then serve their corporate masters. But that isn't why people voted against them. That would
be assuming some sort of political sophistication among the masses. It is rather, IMHO, the corporate
owned media in the form of AM radio, cable and local news outlets, and most local newspapers who
either report on nothing that might change the status quo or are actual propaganda outlets for
the ultra right. The fact that Fox news and right wing radio is the background music of mid America,
should not be discounted. And secondly, the seizure of nearly all of the church pulpits by the
'religious' right. People vote the way their pastor tells them to vote. This isn't rocket science.
When there is a coup, the first order of business has always been to seize the radio and TV stations.
Bernie who ?
In a close election, there is something of everything. But this concept that the election turned
on these displaced workers is hilarious. In truth, we've been talking about things like this since
the 70s or before. Why now? Because now, a wave of xenophobia and racism swept the world and that
was the wave Trump rode to office. Many of his so-called displaced workers overlap with those
groups. Add the religious evangelicals. That's how Trump won... take away the evangelicals, take
away the racists, take away the xenophobes, take away the screaming about the Mexican this, the
Muslims that, the Syrians, the pandering to far-right groups who in the past were considered the
underbelly of the country..and Trump doesn't have a chance. This is a man with Mike Pence as vice
president. This is a man who brings people like Steve Bannon into the administration. That's how
he won and that's how he remains popular with his base. The rest is an illusion
What happens to those good old days when a job could support an entire family? Reagan happened.
Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, building up our military 10 times as big as the next largest
military, deregulating banks and brokerage... Then Clinton continued to deregulate further. Then
Bush brought about more tax cuts for the rich and Obama kept his tax policy on place. In 68, a
minimum wage worker with 3 kids fell 500 dollars above the poverty line. (5,000 in today's money).
Today, a minimum wage worker with 3 kids falls 10,000 below the poverty line. And the neocon/neoliberal
answer to that is women must work, single people need roommates and the wealthy need tax relief.
What a load of crap.
The Democratic Party is still owned and operated by the Wall Street, fossil fuel and war interests.
The fact that the DNC installed Tom Perez, who is not inspired by the idea of health care as a
human right, is telling. The DNC is the enemy of lower-middle class working (or non-working) people.
The DNC nominated the candidate least likely to win over Trump. The Democrats need to send their
bank/war/oil candidates to the Republicans. We need a whole new truly progressive party..but since
our governement has been sold to the highest bidder, it make take some unpleasantness in the streets
to achieve power over the special interests. And EVERYONE must vote EVERY TIME.
The problem is US elites, who are only exceptional in their stupidity.
"Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like
the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton
The exceptionally stupid US elite are going for the easy money and destroying their nation.
Its elites are always rigging stuff in their favour and forgetting the reality they have hidden.
There is a huge difference between wealth creation and wealth extraction, but today we have
no idea of even the concept of wealth extraction.
Well, one of our 21st Century Nobel prize winning economists, Angus Deaton, has just remembered
the problem.
The Classical Economists of the 19th Century were only too aware of the two sides of capitalism,
the productive side where wealth creation takes place and the parasitic side where wealth extraction
takes place.
The US was a key player in developing neoclassical economics and it's what we use today.
It looks after the interests of the old money, idle rich rentiers.
The distinction between "earned" income (wealth creation) and "unearned" income (wealth extraction)
disappears and the once separate areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The old money, idle
rich rentiers are now just productive members of society and not parasites riding on the back
of other people's hard work.
It happens at the end of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but doesn't blow up until
the 21st century when the exceptionally stupid US elite have forgotten what they have done.
Monetary theory has been regressing for the last one hundred years.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial intermediation theory
" banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the funds out at a higher rate
of interest" Paul Krugman, 2015.
One of today's Nobel Prize winning economists spouting today's nonsense.
Progress in monetary theory has been in the reverse direction, leading to many of today's problems.
There was massive debt and money creation in the US leading up to the 2008 bust:
Get back to the Classical Economists to learn how you tax "unearned" income to provide subsidized
housing, healthcare, education and other services to provide a low cost economy whose workforce
isn't priced out of the global market place.
When you understand money you can see in the money supply when Wall Street is getting really
stupid and about to blow up the economy.
Throughout history, the "people" were ruled by the powerful even if the powerful were idiots,
thieves, rapists and murderers. Times have changed. People don't accept that anymore. But if Democrats
have made a blanket error it was in assuming that everyone sees the world as they do, and in assuming
that everyone is a rational being committed to the ideals of a republic. Clearly that is not the
case. And the "people" want leaders, not pals. They want security. Democrats need a person who
combines the guile of a Machiavelli with the smarts of an Obama and the steel fist of a Cromwell.
Thing is, under such conditions, it's doubtful if the "people" are governable anymore, in the
sense of making decisions based on reality as opposed to a combination of superstition, myth,
and misinformation. Oh, and vanity is an important factor: ask Susan Sarandon and her proxy vote
for Trump--she voted for Stein.
It was the DLC ("Democrats Led by Clintons") that brought the DP to its current condition of self-satisfied
atrophy and irrelevance by embracing Davos "meritocracy" and neo-liberal economics combined with
neo-conservative foreign policy for the past 30 years. They sealed their fate by turning the Party
(DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DGA, most state committees) into stale and pale imitations of Reagan's GOP;
and Party 'leaders' are far too comfortable with their own sense of entitlement to power and wealth
to understand either the fallacies of their tunnel vision, or the consequences (like electing
Trump and keeping the GOP in control of Congress and most states) of their blinkered myopia.
The only hope for the DP is to let the genuine 'progressives' (aka the socialist/green 'left')
take over management of the political apparatus because what passes for 'liberalism' these days
is no longer an electoral/policy option, at least as far as the electorate is concerned. And all
the early indications are that the from the DNC down the Party establishment is more concerned
about stamping out the Bernie Bro and Ho heresies than defeating Republicans.
Our politicians have been brainwashed by neoliberal economists.
These economists produce models that factor-in all the upsides to globalisation, but fail to
model any of the crippling, expensive-to-treat consequences of shutting down entire towns in places
like Michigan or Lancashire.
They assume people live frictionless lives; that when the European ship-building industry moves
to Poland, riveters in Portsmouth can just up-sticks and move to Gdansk with no problem. They
encourage a narrative that implies such an English riveter are lazy if he fails to seize this
opportunity.
(Let's drop a few economists in Gdansk with £100 in their pockets, and see how their families
do.)
Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific justification for the
greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists
went back to the social science faculty, where they belong.
Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between
the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has
become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
"... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks
informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
"... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
"... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the
Washington Post reported . ..."
Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC
staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017
A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - -
special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - -
Russia
should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become
the focus of
conspiracy theorists .
In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - -
proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump
confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails
to WikiLeaks.
Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington.
In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - -
insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the
area, according
to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.
"This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety,
told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that
doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."
On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.
In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with "
high confidence " in a public
report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks,
which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary
Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.
This week, the Russian embassy in the UK
shared the conspiracy on Twitter,
CNN reported
, calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers
to take notice".
The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract
its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family
said
in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the
world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".
On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently
assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks
something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.
"Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians,
it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.
"He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."
Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact
with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that
he did not have any evidence himself.
"Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told
CNN.
The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case,
the
Washington Post reported .
"... Growing inequality partly reflects a racial wealth gap. Middle-class white Americans are more likely to live in neighborhoods with rising home values (and thus, family equity) while their middle-class black counterparts are more likely to rent, or live in neighborhoods with stagnant values. ..."
Growing inequality partly reflects a racial wealth gap. Middle-class white Americans are more
likely to live in neighborhoods with rising home values (and thus, family equity) while their middle-class
black counterparts are more likely to rent, or live in neighborhoods with stagnant values.
Hostile, sometimes fatal confrontations between police and African American youth might be rarer
if the poorest young people were not concentrated in neighborhoods lacking well-resourced schools,
good jobs and transportation to better opportunities. In integrated neighborhoods with substantial
middle class populations, police perform as public servants, not as an occupying force.
We've done little to desegregate neighborhoods, believing their racial homogeneity is "de facto",
tied to private prejudice, personal choices, realtor discrimination or income differences that make
middle-class suburbs unaffordable to most African Americans. Under our constitutional system, if
neighborhoods are segregated by private activity, we can do little about it.
Only if neighborhoods are segregated "de jure", by explicit government policy, is remedial action
permitted. Indeed, the constitution requires remedies for de jure segregation.
In truth, de facto segregation is largely a myth. As my new book, The Color of Law, recounts,
racially explicit government policy in the mid-twentieth century separated the races in every metropolitan
area, with effects that endure today.
The New Deal created our first civilian public housing, intended to provide lodging mostly for
lower-middle class white families during the Depression. The Roosevelt administration built a few
projects for black families as well, but almost always segregated. At the time, many urban neighborhoods
were integrated because workers of both races lived in walking distance of downtown factories. The
Public Works Administration (PWA) demolished many such integrated neighborhoods – deemed slums –
to build segregated housing instead, creating segregation where it had never before existed.
In his autobiography, The Big Sea, the poet and novelist Langston Hughes described going to high
school in an integrated Cleveland neighborhood where his best friend was Polish and he dated a Jewish
girl. The PWA cleared the area to build one project for whites and another for African Americans.
Previously integrated neighborhoods in Cambridge, Atlanta, St Louis, San Francisco and elsewhere
also gave way to segregated public housing, structuring patterns that persisted for generations.
During the second world war, white and black Americans flocked to jobs in defense plants, sometimes
in communities that had no tradition of segregated living. Yet the government built separate projects
for black and white citizens, determining future residential boundaries. Richmond, California, was
the nation's largest shipbuilding center. It had few African Americans before the war; by its end,
some 15,000 were housed in a federal ghetto along the railroad tracks.
By the mid-1950s, projects for white Americans had many unoccupied units while those for African
Americans had long waiting lists. The contrast became so conspicuous that all public housing was
opened to African Americans. As industry relocated to suburbs, jobs disappeared and public housing
residents became poorer. A program that originally addressed a middle-class housing shortage became
a way to warehouse the poor.
Why did white housing projects develop vacancies while black ones had long waiting lists? It largely
resulted from a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) program that guaranteed loans to builders of
suburban subdivisions, on the explicit condition that black families be excluded and that house deeds
prohibit resale to them. In the late 1940s, William Levitt could never independently have amassed
capital to construct 17,000 houses in what became Levittown, east of New York City. He could do so
only because the FHA relieved banks of risk in making development loans, provided homes were for
whites only.
Urban public housing, originally for middle-class white Americans and later for lower-income African
Americans, combined with FHA subsidized suburbanization of whites, created a "white noose" around
urban black families that persists to this day.
In 1968, the Fair Housing Act permitted African Americans to access previously white neighborhoods.
But it prohibited only future discrimination, without undoing the previous 35 years of government-imposed
segregation. In suburbs like Levittown that sprouted nationwide in the 1940s and 50s, houses sold
for about $100,000 (in today's currency), twice the national median income.
FHA-amortized mortgages were affordable for working-class families of either race, although only
whites were allowed. Today, these houses sell for $400,000, seven times national median income, unaffordable
to working-class families. Meanwhile, whites who suburbanized with federal protection gained $300,000
in equity to use for children's college tuition, care for aging parents, or medical emergencies.
Black families remaining as renters gained no such security.
Our belief in "de facto" segregation is paralyzing. If our racial separation stems from millions
of individual decisions, it is hard to imagine the millions of different choices that could undo
it. But if we remember that residential segregation results primarily from forceful and unconstitutional
government policy, we can begin to consider equally forceful public action to reverse it. Learning
this history is the first step we can take.
"... "The minute you to start talking about the inequality of opportunity, you fuel the politics of anger. The politics of anger have a tendency to produce improbable results. The major risk is that we don't know how much we've strained the underlying system. But what we do know is we are getting signals that suggest it's under enormous stress, which means the probability of either a policy mistake or market accident goes up." ..."
"... Third, pockets of extreme indebtedness must be addressed, a lesson he learned working with the IMF in Latin America in the 1980s. "When you have a debt overhang, it's like a black cloud," he argues. "It sucks oxygen out of the system. You cannot grow of it: whether it's Greece or student loans in the US, you need to deal with debt overhangs." The process of debt forgiveness is hard, he concedes, because some people are unfairly rewarded – "but the alternatives are worse." ..."
Leading economist and investor believes world leaders, and global capitalism, have reached
fork in road between equality and chaos
This is the nub of El-Erian's analysis of why the developed world is approaching a fork in the
road. The inequality generated by the current low-growth climate has three elements: inequality of
wealth, income and opportunity. The last of the three – manifested in high youth unemployment in
many eurozone countries, for example – is the most explosive element.
"The minute you to start talking about the inequality of opportunity, you fuel the politics
of anger. The politics of anger have a tendency to produce improbable results. The major risk is
that we don't know how much we've strained the underlying system. But what we do know is we are getting
signals that suggest it's under enormous stress, which means the probability of either a policy mistake
or market accident goes up."
... ... ...
How do we take the high, benign road? El-Erian has a four-point plan.
First, "we need to get back to investing in things that promote economic growth, infrastructure,
a more pro-growth tax system for the US, serious labour retooling ... If you're in Europe, youth
employment is an issue you've really got to think about very seriously."
Second, countries that can afford to do so must "exploit the fiscal space," meaning borrowing
to invest or cutting taxes. He puts the US and Germany unambiguously in that category "and to a certain
extent the UK".
Third, pockets of extreme indebtedness must be addressed, a lesson he learned working with
the IMF in Latin America in the 1980s. "When you have a debt overhang, it's like a black cloud,"
he argues. "It sucks oxygen out of the system. You cannot grow of it: whether it's Greece or student
loans in the US, you need to deal with debt overhangs." The process of debt forgiveness is hard,
he concedes, because some people are unfairly rewarded – "but the alternatives are worse."
Fourth, regional and global governance needs repair. He compares the eurozone to a stool with
one-and-a-half legs instead of four. The complete leg is monetary union, the half is banking union.
The missing legs are fiscal integration, meaning a common budget, and political harmonisation. No
wonder the eurozone is unstable, he says: "You can do three legs, you can't do one and half."
To return to El-Erian's core T-junction analogy, none of the required manoeuvres sound easy. "You
don't need a big bang," he replies. "If you want to take the good turn you have to see some progress
on some of these elements. If you don't, then we take the other turn." He ascribes equal probabilities
– "it's a political judgment."
What's an investor to do? El-Erian says his own approach, which he admits is hard for the average
person to copy, is framed like a bar-bell. At one end, he's invested in high-risk startups where
you don't need all to succeed. At the other, he's in cash and cash-like investments. In the middle,
he'll invest in public markets only tactically.
Officials have claimed in the wake of the global ransomware attack that patient care has been
unaffected despite 45 NHS sites
being hit.
But hospitals across England and Scotland were forced to cancel routine procedures and divert
emergency cases in the wake of the attack, which has shut down access to computers in almost 100
countries. Here, patients and NHS workers reveal how the crisis has affected them.
Bill, a doctor at a hospital in London
I have been unable to look after patients properly. However much they pretend patient safety is
unaffected, it's not true. At my hospital we are literally unable to do any X-rays, which are
an essential component of emergency medicine. I had a patient this evening who we could not do
an X-ray for, who absolutely should have had one. He is OK but that is just one example.
My hospital is good in many ways but the IT system is appalling. I was shocked when I started
in hospital at how bad the systems are. I know the staff will do their very best to keep looking
after everyone, but there are no robust systems in place to deal with blackouts like this, information-sharing
is hard enough in a clinical environment when everything works.
Without the IT systems I suspect test results will be missed, and definitely delayed. Handovers
are much more difficult. It will absolutely certainly impact patient safety negatively, even if
that impact can't be clearly measured. This is basically all the result of chronic underfunding
and crap, short-sighted management.
Theresa, 44, a breast cancer patient from Lincolnshire
I was halfway through my chemotherapy infusion when the attack happened. The treatment finished
without a hitch, but I then had to wait for a couple of hours for my medications to take home.
That's because all drugs have to be checked against prescriptions, and they are all computerised.
The hospital pharmacists worked quickly to produce paper copies, but it still took a while. The
horrible side-effects (nausea, exhaustion, dizziness) kicked in while I was stuck in rush-hour
traffic coming home. Fortunately, I wasn't driving.
There were other patients in the ward waiting to start their chemo whose drugs had been delivered
but again couldn't be checked, so administration was delayed. In some cases treatment had to be
postponed entirely for another day. The oncology nurses and the hospital staff were brilliant
throughout, reassuring patients and doing their best in difficult circumstances. They were also
deeply apologetic, frustrated that they couldn't do their job, and angry that such an act had
put patients treatment – and lives – at risk.
Amber, 40, a community nurse from Essex
We have been unable to check patient information and scheduled visits for this afternoon. I am
working this weekend and had to write down who we may see tomorrow from my own memory. Our own
call centre for community services is in lockdown and unable to receive any information regarding
authorisation for drug changes or referrals. We are also unable to look up patient addresses,
complete any documentation or check test results.
Alun Phillips, 45, a community pharmacist from Merseyside
Doctors in Liverpool have been advised to isolate their computer systems from the wider NHS network.
This has left many of our local surgeries unable to access patient records, which are cloud-based.
Surgeries are unable to issue prescriptions from their systems, most of which are now issued electronically
via the NHS spine. Even if they could, we (community pharmacy) are being advised to not connect
to the spine. We have had quite a few requests from local surgeries to tell them what medication
patient are on, as although they cannot access patient records we still have our copy of the patients'
medication records. We have also made some emergency supplies of medication to patients unable
to access GP services while they are down.
Kyle, 42, a patient from Maidestone
I am waiting for test results after a urine infection and pain in my kidneys. I called the doctors
this afternoon. They said it looks like I need a further prescription but the doctor will need
to call me back. Two hours later I get a call from the doctor advising me that they have had to
shut down their systems due to this hack, and that they can't give me any results till Monday.
I am now worried that my situation is going to get worse without any treatment.
Ben, 37, in the prescription team at a GP surgery in the north
We were unable to process any prescriptions for patients, including urgent requests. As a result
patients could potentially be left without asthma, epilepsy or diabetes medication over the weekend.
We also had a medical emergency on-site and waited over 40 minutes for an ambulance to attend.
Ali, a cardiologist from the north
I am a cardiology registrar. At work, on call for a tertiary cardiology centre. Treating patients
with heart attacks, attending cardiac arrests, seeing sick patients in resus. We are unable to
access to old notes, blood results, x-rays or order vital tests. Blood samples are being sent
to other hospitals. We have one working x-ray viewer for the entire hospital and emergency results
are being rung through already overloaded phone lines. All of which potentially delays vital treatment
and could jeopardise patient safety. Those with life-threatening problems are still receiving
appropriate care. Though this couldn't have happened at a worse time with the weekend looming,
patients are still being looked after safely thanks to the dedication of all the members of staff
at work tonight. It's been a stark reminder of the conditions we worked under over 20 years ago
– and on how reliant on computers we are even to do things as simple as prescribe basic drugs.
Kaley, 30, a receptionist at a large surgery in the north-west
Friday afternoons are usually one of our busiest times at the surgery. With already full clinics
and people ringing for emergency appointments there were five reception staff on duty. There was
no warning that there was anything wrong with the computer systems but at around 3pm the screens
all went black, indicating that the computers had crashed. We had no access to any patient information
for the GPs or nurses. There was no way of checking the patients in. Phones were still ringing.
The computers were down for about an hour but then we were able to get back on. We received notification
that there was a virus affecting the whole of the NHS. The practice manager received a text from
the CCG advising that we should invoke "emergency planning measures". This involves printing lists
out of patients due to attend all clinics from Friday afternoon until Monday afternoon. Then we
had to print out full medical information for each patient as the system was being taken down
to investigate the virus. It's been a difficult afternoon.
"Cyber criminals may believe they are anonymous but we will use all the tools at our disposal
to bring them to justice," said Oliver Gower from the National Crime Agency.
The expert, known only as MalwareTech on Twitter, said hackers could upgrade the virus. "Version
1 of WannaCrypt was stoppable but version 2.0 will likely remove the flaw,"
he said on
Twitter . "You're only safe if you patch ASAP."
On Sunday, Microsoft issued a security bulletin marked "critical" including security updates that
it said "resolves vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows".
It emerged over the weekend that NHS Digital last month emailed 10,000 individuals in NHS organisations
warning them to protect themselves against the specific threat of ransomware and included a software
patch to block such hacks on the majority of systems. However, it would not work with outdated Windows
XP systems that still run on about 5% of NHS devices.
NHS Digital said it did not yet know how many organisations installed the update and this would
be revealed in a later analysis of the incident.
... ... ...
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, who is leading the response to the attack, said the same day:
"I don't think it's to do with ... preparedness. There's always more we can all do to make sure we're
secure against viruses, but I think there have already been good preparations in place by the NHS
to make sure they were ready for this sort of attack."
The ransomware uses a vulnerability first revealed to the public as part of a leaked stash of
NSA-related documents in order to infect Windows PCs and encrypt their contents, before demanding
payments of hundreds of dollars for the key to decrypt files.
How does it spread?
Most ransomware is spread hidden within Word documents, PDFs and other files normally sent via
email, or through a secondary infection on computers already affected by viruses that offer a back
door for further attacks.
The malware that has affected Telefónica in Spain and the NHS in Britain is the same software:
a piece of ransomware first spotted in the wild
by security
researchers MalwareHunterTeam , at 9:45am on 12 May.
Less than four hours later, the ransomware had infected NHS computers, albeit
originally only in Lancashire , and spread laterally throughout the NHS's internal network. It
is also being called Wanna Decryptor 2.0, WCry 2, WannaCry 2 and Wanna Decryptor 2.
How much are they asking for?
WanaCrypt0r 2.0 is asking for $300 worth of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin to unlock the contents
of the computers.
The creators of this piece of ransomware are still unknown, but WanaCrypt0r 2.0 is their second
attempt at cyber-extortion. An earlier version, named WeCry, was
discovered
back in February this year : it asked users for 0.1 bitcoin (currently worth $177, but with a
fluctuating value) to unlock files and programs.
How is the NSA tied in to this attack?
Once one user has unwittingly installed this particular flavour of ransomware on their own PC,
it tries to spread to other computers in the same network. In order to do so, WanaCrypt0r uses a
known vulnerability in the Windows operating system, jumping between PC and PC. This weakness was
first revealed to the world as part of
a huge leak of NSA hacking tools and known weaknesses by an anonymous group calling itself "Shadow
Brokers" in April.
Was there any defence?
Yes. Shortly before the Shadow Brokers released their files, Microsoft issued a patch for affected
versions of Windows, ensuring that the vulnerability couldn't be used to spread malware between fully
updated versions of its operating system. But for many reasons, from lack of resources to a desire
to fully test new updates before pushing them out more widely, organisations are often slow to install
such security updates on a wide scale.
Who are the Shadow Brokers? Were they behind this attack?
In keeping with almost everything else in the world of cyberwarfare, attribution is tricky. But
it seems unlikely that the Shadow Brokers were directly involved in the ransomware strike: instead,
some opportunist developer seems to have spotted the utility of the information in the leaked files,
and updated their own software accordingly. As for the Shadow Brokers themselves, no-one really knows,
but fingers point towards Russian actors as likely culprits.
Will paying the ransom really unlock the files?
Sometimes paying the ransom will work, but sometimes it won't. For the
Cryptolocker ransomware that hit a few years ago, some users reported that they really did get
their data back after paying the ransom, which was typically around £300. But there's no guarantee
paying will work, because cybercriminals aren't exactly the most trustworthy group of people.
There are also a collection of viruses that go out of their way to look like ransomware such as
Cryptolocker, but which won't hand back the data if victims pay. Plus, there's the ethical issue:
paying the ransom funds more crime.
What else can I do?
Once ransomware has encrypted your files there's not a lot you can do. If you have a backup of
the files you should be able to restore them after cleaning the computer, but if not your files could
be gone for good.
Some badly designed ransomware, however, has been itself hacked by security researchers, allowing
recovery of data. But such situations are rare, and tend not to apply in the case of widescale professional
hits like the WanaCrypt0r attack.
How long will this attack last?
Ransomware often has a short shelf life. As anti-virus vendors cotton on to new versions of the
malware, they are able to prevent infections originating and spreading, leading to developers attempting
"Big Bang" introductions like the one currently underway.
Will they get away with it?
Bitcoin, the payment medium through which the hackers are demanding payment, is difficult to trace,
but not impossible, and the sheer scale of the attack means that law enforcement in multiple countries
will be looking to see if they can follow the money back to the culprits.
Why is the NHS being targeted?
The NHS does not seem to have been specifically targeted, but the service is not helped by its
reliance on old, unsupported software. Many NHS trusts still use Windows XP, a version of Microsoft's
operating system that has not received publicly available security updates for half a decade, and
even those which are running on newer operating systems are often sporadically maintained. For an
attack which relies on using a hole fixed less than three months ago, just a slight oversight can
be catastrophic.
Attacks on healthcare providers across the world are at an all-time high as they contain valuable
private information, including healthcare records.
"... Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses he thought he could ram through. ..."
"... He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business, where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't work that way. ..."
"... The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment and massive poverty. ..."
"... The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital ..."
"... His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's the american way, right? ..."
Trump is not like Hitler; Trump does not believe in anything but pleasing himself. That is
dangerous, but not as dangerous as if he had a delusional vision. Trump is not very bright and
a bit lazy (although restless at the same time); he is a billionaire's son who got away with everything
in life and has no concern for anybody but himself.
If the US institutions hold their nerve, we can get through his presidency with a functioning
planet.
A recent poll asked whether people think negatively about him because he has not fulfilled
his campaign promises or positively despite not having fulfilled them. I am grateful that he has
not achieved anything; that is a big positive.
As the article rightly pointed out fascism is a product of socialism. Socialists see the riches
of the business world and strike a pact with it and the state they seize.
Trump is very much part of that business world and strikes down the state to conservative levels
of near libertarian scope.
Namely: Trump is the polar opposite of a fascist. Thanks Professor de Grazia
Not sure if I missed something, but I can't see where the article 'points out' that fascism
is a product of socialism and it would be a shaky hypothesis if it did considering that neither
Italy nor Germany were socialist countries prior to the rise of fascism in the one and naziism
in the other. Fear of socialism was certainly a driving force behind fascism, especially amongst
those who had most to lose from it, but trying to put the blame for fascism on socialism is just
silly.
But a very good article, and one of the best analyses of what Trump is about I have read.
Hitler carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions of his immediate staff
and any opposition that seemed to be a threat to him such as during the "Night of the Long
Knives"; Trump had no opponents rounded-up and shot (yet... and highly unlikely he intends
to or that the courts would allow him to authorise that)
Hitler made numerous speeches vilifying the Jews and blaming them for exploiting the working
class and manipulating the economies of Europe; Trump made friendly comments about cooperating
with Israel.
Hitler implemented Fascism, being a totalitarian ideology, needing a strong state;Trump
seems to think that you can have strong leadership and a weak government at the same time.
Hitler had a totalitarian ideology and surrounded himself with militant, uniformed party
members and followers who had a military structure and a system of party branch leaders called
Gauleiter; Trump lacks both totalitarian ideology and a militant, uniformed party or movement
to qualify as a true fascist.
Hitler 's part the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi party) emerged from the
German nationalist, racist, and the populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against
the communist uprisings, Trump's Republican party has a very different history and comes from
a much older tradition.
Hitler's Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist
rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial
entities; Trump from the start played the card making American businesses great again, empowering
businesses to create jobs.
Hitler sought to improve the stock of the Germanic people through racial purity and eugenics,
broad social welfare programs, and a collective subordination of individual rights, which could
be sacrificed for the good of the state and the "Aryan master race"; Trump doesn't propagate
a master race ideology and Trump is not a fan of Broad welfare programs at all.
Hitler invaded Germany's neighbour Poland; Trump does not intend invading Mexico, although
he wants to prevent invaders entering from that side. (Nervous Canadians, I don't think anyone
is willing to avenge The War of 1812 just yet)
Hitler established death camps to exterminate Jews, undesirables and the "mentally feeble";
Trump has not built death camps where people are gassed and cremated en masse nor does Trump
have a Gestapo marching around arresting people.
Hitler executed his immediate staff and any opposition that seemed to be a threat to him
such as the "Night of the Long Knives" Trump had no opponents rounded-up and shot (yet and
highly unlikely he will or that the courts would allow him to authorise that)
Hitler's party, executed homosexuals; No evidence that Trump does the same.
Hitler's followers organised instigating protests and a pogrom against Jewish businesses
smashing shops and burning businesses as during Kristallnacht; Trump's supporters don't do
the same. As for protestors smashing and looting shops you probably are thinking of anti-Trump
protestors.
Hitler started a world war by invading Poland, Austria and France; Trump has not started
a world war or invaded any New country or New areas of conflict, yet other than where American
troops were already deployed under previous governments.
Is it useful to refer to Trump as Hitler or a Fascist? Not really, because you are preoccupied
by a label and trying constantly to make it stick by indulging in name calling while not analysing
and dealing with the root of the problems in a rational or effective way.
Bashing of minorities that are not considered legitimate members of the nation is not an exclusive
Nazi or a pass time of Hitler alone, Stalin did so as well he also targeted Jews along with Kalmyk
people, Crimean Tatars, Armenians and Azerbaijanis , Estonians, Cossacks, Ukrainians, Poles and
even Germans and there were many other leaders and political systems and genocides the Armenian
genocide or the Serbian genocides to name a few. Trump is not exactly involved in a nazi style
genocide against undocumented migrants in America although some nutters would try hard to create
some extreme narrative like that.
My observations have told me from the very first time I saw him on TV in the 80's that he is a
con man. Since the campaign I learned about his brother and I have seen more of him than I would
have voluntarily subjected myself to. I still think he is a con man with the addition of some
idea of his pathology.
I expect that his father was an abusive twat. His brother was mercilessly mentally and emotionally
beaten down and turned to drink as many do to kill the unspeakable pain of having ones self esteem
destroyed by a parent. Donald saw this and chose to please dad for fear of facing the same fate.
He dissociated that fact and internilized everything dad said.
The him we see is the construct he created to please daddy, the little boy inside never got
to grow into a man because he had to maintain the false construct to create the impression he
had to for dad. This is why he has such disregard for the truth. He does not understand that truth
is truth.
Everything else is the frenetic activity adult children of abuse engage in to avoid feeling
what they feel while waiting for the next opportunity to trot out the constructed self.
He never became a person in his own right. He is a construct of all the behaviors he has developed,
first to please daddy and then to please/manipulate those he wished to take advantage of or please.
Trump and his republican henchmen and enablers isn't a Nazi because they do not possess the historical
context or political tools to become proper fascists.
If the Americans had been humiliated in war, undergone a vast currency devaluation, and starved
in the streets, then these people would have everything they need to set up a real tyranny.
People have predicted the rise of American fascism for years. When the true global emergency
arrives, which is climate change and the wars that it will cause, and the coasts start contracting,
and the dollar turns to confetti, and the militias start to march, then the military will seize
control and true American fascism will emerge.
Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the
way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses
he thought he could ram through.
He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business,
where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't
work that way.
A cool and calm assessment there. I would credit him with more nous than you provide but it's
difficult to prove. How about going in with the worst eventualities and bargain from there as
a way of getting what one wants.
Two examples:
1. I'm taking us out of NATO. NATO needs America more than vice versa but it's certainly useful
for America to be a part of it, they just want to not pay so much.
2. I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. Trump wants a secure border
and a total re-negotiation of Nafta, the wall is the bargaining chip.
He can do both, he might yet end up doing so, nobody has called his bluff yet, we'll see. He's
way smarter than certain people think.
On target. A few points of amplification:
1) The Nazis did not have enough votes to pass the Enabling Act that made Hitler the dictator
of Germany. The key votes were provided by the deputies from the Catholic Center Party led by
Msgr Ludwig Kaas. As in Italy, the Catholic Church played a significant role in enabling fascist
dictatorship.
2) The correct historical analogy for Trump isn't Hitler or Mussolini, its Alfred Hugenberg.
3) The success of German and Italian fascism, and the Trump phenomenon, have some important common
elements. All are rooted in the fact that conservative, elitist parties defending the interests
of the wealthy can't attract sufficient masses of voters successfully without appeals to forms
of bigotry. This is most successful when appealing to middle-class voters battered by economic
changes and to those with frustrated middle-class aspirations.
4) Readers interested in exploring this topic further should read Robert Paxton's (one time colleague
of Prof. de Grazia at Columbia) thoughtful Anatomy of Fascism.
He's signing Executive Orders (remember when he said that Obama was behaving like a dictator
for signing EO's, despite Obama signing less than he has?) that effectively dismantle any barrier
to Corporations making profit, from slashing and burning Environmental Protection Laws to abolishing
Consumer Protection Laws.
He's using his position to build up the family business, including positioning family members
into key political positions, and making the tax payer fund his various jaunts to the property
he owns, while Ivanka sits in on important meetings then tweets that you too can own that piece
of jewellery she wore that she coincidently will directly profit from if you do, while his sons
use tax payer funds to travel overseas and make business deals.
Trump is also slashing taxes for the rich and corporations while slashing programs that help
the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed.
He has also openly attacked the Judiciary, threatens to oust any one who dares go against him
from within the Legislative Branch, attacks at will the 'Fourth Estate', and today stated the
Constitution is 'archaic' and, I quote, 'really a bad thing for the country.'
He attacks minorities at will, creates enemies by making false claims (no, Obama didn't have
you tapped), holds rallies for the faithful making bombastic claims, openly states he could shoot
someone in the head and his supporters would still love him, and on live television states he
will have his political opponents jailed.
He has close links and is supported by radical white supremacists ans also has close links
to conspiracy theorists.
He is a gross misogynist who has admitted to grabbing women by the pussy and is recorded as
stating that he would often walk into the dressing rooms of young, underage teenage girls while
they were in various states of undress essentially because he was the boss and he was entitled
to.
He also stated without foundation that millions of illegals voted in the Election attempting
to throw into doubt the validity of any results (logically this would naturally throw into doubt
his win, but hey, the guy is an idiot).
He has also expanded the military budget despite the US spending by far more than any other
nation (more than the next 7 nations combined in fact).
He also has an obsession with nationalal security, deliberately making false claims not only
about statistics within the US but also falsely claiming that events have occurred overseas when
they clearly have not. He is also using his obsession with National Security to push for an enormous
and expensive Border Wall while claiming that Mexico will pay for it.
His disdain for intellectuals and the arts is clear (he had a juvenile dig at Hollywood today,
again), in fact it was one of the platforms which he used to gain the Presidency, all couched
within the term 'Liberal elite' which seems to include just about anyone who would dare speak
out against him.
He has now created a group that will announce crimes committed by immigrants, despite statistics
that show immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, which satisfy not
only his obsession with crime and punishment, but also his obsession with scapegoating minorities.
Now I know, many people don't like the term fascist, but what else should we call him??? The
terms 'fascist' and 'fascism' actually have real meanings. And Trumps actions very much tick the
majority of the following list:
14 signs of fascism:
Powerful and continuing nationalism
Disdain for human rights
Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Supremacy of the military
Rampant sexism
Controlled mass media
Obsession with national security
Religion and government intertwined
Corporate power protected
Labor [sic] power suppressed
Disdain for intellectuals & the arts
Obsession with crime & punishment
Rampant cronyism & corruption
Fraudulent elections
Seems to tick a whole lot on that list, doesn't he??
What you have listed is just a hysterical fruit salad of campaign speech quotes and catastrophist
exaggerations. The notion that Trump encapsulates ALL that you find distasteful is one thing,
but your attempt to prove (and fail) that in 100 days of office he has single-handedly transformed
a liberal democracy into a fascist hell-hole is risible.
"Nazi storm troopers lit bonfires of un-German books"
The only people I see burning books, attacking free speech, and starting streetfights with
those they disagree with are the progressives (I resfuse to call them liberal or left wing as
they are not). They are the new fascists.
I dislike Mr. Trump intensely but to call him the only fascist is incorrect. It is the left that
attack anyone who agrees with Mr. Trump - and I mean physically and with extreme violence. There
is a major attempt to shut down free speech and drive the Trump supporters into silence. The comparison
with the Nazi brownshirts in the harsh days of the 1930's is unmistakable. Actually the two sides
in American politics show a mish-mash of Nazi characteristics each. I despair of sanity returning
to the United States anytime soon.
The US is a corporate plutocracy and there is enormous false consciousness on the liberal side
to take tax cutting and populist measures that are pro-American business to constitute a fascist
regime.
The psychology behind this false consciousness is the denial of the failure of the Obama's
Democrat presidency to address the extremities of free market capitalism. Fair enough, as the
US will always be a high risk free market society, but the partisan project of the liberal international
media is to convince the world that somehow the Democrats are always on the side of the angels.
This is wholly dishonest ideological manipulation which results only in the inevitable conversion
of American politics into a never-ending culture war.
Trump has adopted Hillary's foreign policy, so the MIC is happy with him. The liberals still hate
jis domestic policies, though. So he's no longer fascist, just reactionary.
A bombing raid carried out before any inquiry took place . The last time they investigated a supposed
attack by Assad's troops the investigators did not even visit the site . This time they bombed
one of the only places they could have gathered evidence. I guess the depth of an investigation
or the burden of proof depend on the agenda. I don't know if it was a false flag or not .I do
know no real investigation has taken place. I also know the media is biased. There were no cries
of heinous crime when the following week the rebels backed by the US bombed busses full of civilians,
mostly children being evacuated . The mainstream media hardly mentioned it. No cries of war crimes.
We are living in a post truth era. America, Israel ,Saudi and Turkey have an agenda. Could it
just be a coincidence Assad is that stupid to cross the line in the sand just as he realises he
is winning. Britain's ex ambassador to Damascus certainly didn't think so when interviewed the
day after the attack.
If we look at Adolf Hitler's action over his 100 days, we see his goals were terrifyingly
consistent, namely, to build a world empire over the corpse of the Soviet Union and to eliminate
the Jews.
The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and
Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment
and massive poverty. The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically
is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed. So what accounts for
Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced
by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced. Democracy and social
justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige away from whites and towards
minorities and women--hence the economically irrational hatred of Democrats. The GOP is basically
driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right argument about the role of
the state has given way to an identitarian politics.
The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany
and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment
and massive poverty.
The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is
normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's
rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced
by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced.
Democracy and social justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige
away from whites and towards minorities and women -- hence the economically irrational hatred
of Democrats. The GOP is basically driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right
argument about the role of the state has given way to an identitarian politics.
His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least
Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's
the american way, right?
"... "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " ..."
"... "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... ..."
"... I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than fascism. ..."
Fascism has a clear meaning defined by Mussolini as, corporatism, when the state is managed
by corporations and the wealthy. Fascism is a mindset that only the wealthy deserve to rule. Which
is blindly adhered to by the Petit Bourgeoisie. For obvious reasons, fascists see organized labor,
or any organized opposition to their agenda, as their enemy. The bourgeoisie is too self absorbed
to even care about such things. t rump is a master of obfuscation. T rump gibberish is now substituted
for official policy statements. While he is misdirecting our attention with blatant lies and gibberish,
he is working to undermine years of bi partison work on policy that benefits we the people.
I thought this sounded rather odd so I did a quick search:
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and
its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals
or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " Source:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
There was also, in the late 20th century, a general public understanding of fascists as those
authoritarian policitians who would compel the public, burn books and have people beaten up.
The early 21st century definition of a fascist appears to be "anyone who disagrees with ME"
to a lot of people...
"...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception
of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among
the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....
And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation
of society....
I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about
romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian
dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than
fascism.
There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly
such a conflation is nonsense.
I think the major difference between the US and the European experience is the timing between
the existence of a monarchy/aristocracy and the implementation of totalitarian rule.
The US has always been mostly democratic, even when the country was 13 colonies being ruled
by a distant power. The likelihood that people would "accept their fates" in the face of an autocrat
is much less likely here, whereas Germany still had experience with a monarch in the 20th century.
Fascism is defined as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist
state since Nixon embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police
state.
It is clear Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether
or not the US is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations
and a significant percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated.
You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably
softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones." I don't
believe Trump would succeed if he were, today, just to shut down Congress and ascribe by fiat
all political power to himself. That, the people and the legislative branch wouldn't allow. But
if there is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever
drastically antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the
legislative pipe, effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt
plutocrat and his family, along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds
an awful lot like fascist dictatorship, doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it
could.
I think you Americans don't grasp the concept of fascism. Trump is a wanna be authoritarian
leader and has some very backwards ideas, like Mussolini might have been, but you should not confuse
ideology with the form of government. Back in the '20s, Italy was a parliamentary monarchy. It
had a so called flexible constitution, meaning that it could be easily changed to give the government
extraordinary powers to the detriment of the parliament, and this is exactly what Mussolini did.
He eliminated the opposition parties both by changing the law and by force (he had the leader
of the communist party Giacomo Matteotti killed), while the king stood there doing nothing. The
rest is in the article. Trump does not have the power to do that, at least not alone. But if the
entire Republican party allows him to get more power, shut out the congress and eliminate "unfriendly"
judges, then the danger will be a lot more real.
Guardian was an is neoliberal swamp. Those presstitutes have no honor... They will call
black white and smile.
Notable quotes:
"... The mistake most people make is thinking of the world as black and white. I somehow feel Oliver Stone has gotten himself into such a rut. His criticism of the US is fair enough, but he appears to think that, because Putin is critical of the US too, he is somehow unequivocally the "good guy". People have different reasons for being critical of the US, and I can tell you for free that Putin's is very different from, say, Noam Chomsky's. ..."
"... Love Oliver Stone. While his dramatic radar has been shot-to-pieces recently (although I've yet to see 'Snowden'), his interviews and documentaries have been awesome. His book/series 'The Untold History of the United States' with Peter Kuznick is especially a must-see. ..."
"... Robbie Mook and campaign chair, John Podesta met and assembled her communications team in their Brooklyn headquarters to 'engineer the case' and rehearse the 'pitch' to give to the press that 'Russian hacking' was to blame for the whole miserable fiasco. ..."
"... Together with the Godless orange hooligan's bombing of Russian ally Syria recently and John Miller / John Barron 's refusal to allow Exxon Mobil a waiver on existing sanctions, the Russia narrative seems based on fantasy; a misdirection tactic to stop the pitchforks and flaming torches heading for Hillary's campaign and her neoliberal shills, operatives and 'running dogs' ..."
"... The CIA certainly *supports* coups that are in US interests ..."
Film director Oliver Stone has visited the Russian president four times over the past two years,
conducted a dozen interviews with him, and the results have been condensed into four hours of TV.
It is being shown over four evenings from 12 to 15 June on the
US cable channel Showtime
, and is said to be a no-holds-barred, gloves (but not shirt) off encounter.
... ... ...
How did Stone pull off such a coup? He got access to Putin when making his film about the whistleblower
Edward Snowden. The two apparently got on like a dacha on fire, and these extended exchanges are
the result.
... ... ...
Stone is likely to be pretty well disposed towards Putin. He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian
revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine, and rejects
the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential election.
... he reckons that the hacking allegations are fake news got up by the Democrats to delegitimise
the president.
... he still sees the hand of the CIA in attempts to "blow up" Trump and destabilise Russia.
"Russian dissidents are American heroes, American dissidents are Russian heroes" - Penny Rimbaud
The mistake most people make is thinking of the world as black and white. I somehow feel Oliver
Stone has gotten himself into such a rut. His criticism of the US is fair enough, but he appears
to think that, because Putin is critical of the US too, he is somehow unequivocally the "good
guy". People have different reasons for being critical of the US, and I can tell you for free
that Putin's is very different from, say, Noam Chomsky's.
At the very least he seems to think that anything the US accuses Putin of must be false because
the US are always the "bad guy". Just because he doesn't approve of the US and/or thinks they
always have ulterior motives, doesn't mean that they never tell the truth, or that Putin
usually does. It would be more useful if he looked scientifically for the truth rather than remaining
solely partisan.
Love Oliver Stone. While his dramatic radar has been shot-to-pieces recently (although I've yet
to see 'Snowden'), his interviews and documentaries have been awesome. His book/series 'The Untold
History of the United States' with Peter Kuznick is especially a must-see.
"... He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed
at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine ...".
"... rejects the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential election ....".
As does the new book, written by Hillary insiders Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen (who got their
access due to their previous book 'HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton') called
'Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign'.
According to them, 24 hours after Hillary's concession speech, recognising her miserable defeat
to the short-fingered, orange bandit, campaign manager, Robbie Mook and campaign chair, John Podesta
met and assembled her communications team in their Brooklyn headquarters to 'engineer the case'
and rehearse the 'pitch' to give to the press that 'Russian hacking' was to blame for the whole
miserable fiasco.
Together with the Godless orange hooligan's bombing of Russian ally Syria recently and
John Miller /
John Barron 's refusal to allow Exxon Mobil a waiver on existing sanctions, the Russia narrative
seems based on fantasy; a misdirection tactic to stop the pitchforks and flaming torches heading
for Hillary's campaign and her neoliberal shills, operatives and 'running dogs'
I'm an alt-righter, but I quite enjoyed and respected Ollie's 'Untold History of the United States'
even if I didn't agree with all of it. Most often the minority report is the more interesting.
Unless it is written by John Pilger.
You have to try and make the effort to take your blinders
off and rethink your preconceptions, and my sense is that Stone does that, while remaining civil,
prepared to listen to counter arguments and open to debate
I was tempted because I wanted to see him as a counter weight to the emerging global order in
the West. There are issues that I think the West has mishandled or used to provoke
confrontation, but Putin is basically a gangster and Russia a mafia state at the moment
Reply Share
All transitions are tough. Which country that now calls herself Democratic doesn't come from using
Mafia tactics to gain wealth. "Americans", originally from Europe, wiped out the Native Americans
and the British gained a lot from their colonial past.
It's easy to be nice when you have the power and know that you can use it when someone doesn't
do what you ask.
"He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving
a wedge between Russia and Ukraine"
I always love this idea that the CIA is able to magic up tens of thousands of people out of
nowhere and coordinate them to overthrow their government - as if there was nothing wrong with
the Ukrainian government totally betraying their promises and engaging in massive corruption and
Ukrainians were totally fine with it until the CIA used their mass mind control on them...
The CIA certainly *supports* coups that are in US interests, it can't magic them up out of
nowhere.
"He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving
a wedge between Russia and Ukraine, and rejects the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential
election" and Oliver Stone's credibility is pretty shot....
US power isn't innocent, but neither Russian. Stone, a bit like Pilger, is at a point where
his desire to critique US power seems to blind him to the abuses of others.
Hilary Clinton said on Tuesday she takes "personal responsibility" for her loss to
Donald Trump in the
2016 presidential race.
But the former Democratic nominee also blamed Russian interference in the US election and the
release just before the election of a
letter by the FBI director, James Comey , pertaining to the investigation into her emails, saying
such factors deprived her of an otherwise expected victory.
Run against Trump? Elizabeth Warren will certainly stand and fight Read more
"I take absolute personal responsibility," Clinton said of her November defeat during a sit-down
with CNN's Christiane Amanpour at an event titled Women for Women in New York. "I was the candidate,
I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls
that we had."
The former secretary of state nonetheless maintained she was on track to become the first female
president of the United States when a series of obstacles altered the trajectory of the race.
"It wasn't a perfect campaign. There is no such thing," she said. "But I was on the way to winning,
until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on 28 October and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the
minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off."
Clinton was referring to the decision by Comey to disclose – 11 days before election day – that
the FBI was reviewing newly
discovered emails in relation to the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while
at the helm of the Department of State. Just days later, Comey concluded the emails were mostly personal
or duplicates of what the government had already examined prior to clearing Clinton of any criminal
charges.
"... Politics is all about timing, as Machiavelli said. Not being able to choose the times or circumstances, the prince's success depends on his virtue or genius and good fortune. And both in turn depend on having an agenda, sticking with it, and finding the way for the vested interests and major institutions of power to accommodate it. That is especially true if the prince, führer or duce – however we want to call him – claims to want to change everything to bring back national greatness. ..."
"... Victoria de Grazia is Professor of History at Columbia University. She has written numerous books on fascism ..."
"... above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... ..."
"... There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly such a conflation is nonsense. ..."
"... Fascism is defined as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist state since Nixon embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police state. ..."
"... It is clear Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether or not the US is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations and a significant percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated. ..."
"... You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones." ..."
"... But if there is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever drastically antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the legislative pipe, effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt plutocrat and his family, along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds an awful lot like fascist dictatorship, doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it could. ..."
A close historical examination of Hitler and Mussolini's early days underscores how different
Trump's path is to the dictators of the 1930 'Whereas the establishment embraced Hitler and
Mussolini, Trump has embraced the establishment.'
Many call Trump a fascist. 100 days in, is he just a reactionary Republican? Victoria de Grazia
A close historical examination of Hitler and Mussolini's early days underscores how different Trump's
path is to the dictators of the 1930
Sunday 30 April 2017 06.00 EDT Last modified on Monday 1 May 2017 11.25 EDT O n 10 May 1933, Adolf
Hitler's 100th day as German chancellor, as students and Nazi storm troopers lit bonfires of un-German
books in central Berlin, the new minister of enlightenment and propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, endorsed
their "right to clean up the debris of the past". On 6 February 1923, his 100th day in office, Benito
Mussolini battered parliament with another bellicose speech, this one about Italy's right to play
a more aggressive role in international affairs.
Neither the 44-year-old führer of the Nazi party, whom President General Von Hindenburg had named
Reich's chancellor on 30 January 1933, nor the 39-year-old duce of fascism, whom King Victor Emmanuel
III had called to Rome on 30 October 1922 to form a cabinet, began with an electoral majority.
The establishment's expectation was that they would get rid of the left and trade unions, bring
back law and order, and restore the nation's ancient glory. Yet by the end of their first 100 days
of rule, they had obtained so tight a grip over national political life that by the end of another
thousand, they had become dictators for life.
Politics is all about timing, as Machiavelli said. Not being able to choose the times or circumstances,
the prince's success depends on his virtue or genius and good fortune. And both in turn depend on
having an agenda, sticking with it, and finding the way for the vested interests and major institutions
of power to accommodate it. That is especially true if the prince, führer or duce – however we want
to call him – claims to want to change everything to bring back national greatness.
Now, Donald Trump
did want to change everything, if we take seriously his October 2016 "100-Day Action Plan to
Make America Great Again". Pursuing this end, many have accused him of showing fascistic impulses
in his contempt for the administrative state and eagerness to upend the liberal international order,
his hyper-nationalism, militarism, populist sympathies, cult of leadership, misogyny, racism and
political showmanship.
Has his modus operandi in his first months in office reinforced this accusation? Or have his "alt-right"
propensities been coopted by the establishment he promised to oust?
•••
If we look at Hitler's action over his 100 days, we see his goals were terrifyingly consistent,
namely, to build a world empire over the corpse of the Soviet Union and to eliminate the Jews. And
he was utterly ruthless to achieve those ends, starting the very evening of Day 1, when he paraded
tens of thousands of followers around parliament in a torch lit parade. Day 3, 1 February 1933, in
a national radio address to the German people, after underscoring the "appalling inheritance of 14
years of Marxist parties and their followers," he asked for "four years and then to judge us".
But he had no intention to wait for, much less to be judged on the basis of open elections. As
the condition for accepting the appointment, he had President Hindenburg promise to dissolve parliament
and hold elections on 5 March. Meanwhile, after filling all of the major police and security positions
with his own men, he governed without parliamentary checks. By the end of Week 2, Hitler had reassured
the military and industrial establishments of his plans for rearmament and infrastructure projects.
By lucky timing, before Month 1 was up, on 27 February, the Reichstag building – home to the German
parliament –
was set on fire , Hitler immediately laid the blame on a communist plot to overthrow the government,
and before the next day was over, issued the so-called Reichstag Fire Decree "for the Protection
of the People and the State", stripping citizens of their constitutional liberties and outlawing
the communists.
This enabled Hitler, after his coalition won the 5 March general elections by a plurality, to
muster the two-thirds majority to
pass the
constitution-changing Enabling Act on 23 March , to strip the Reichstag of its legislative powers
and create the legal basis for his dictatorship.
On 11 March, Hitler extracted cabinet approval for the creation of the infamous Ministry for Popular
Enlightenment and Propaganda. On 20 March, with arrests of the political opposition soaring into
the scores of thousands, the Bavarian police commissioner, Heinrich Himmler, opened the first concentration
camp at Dachau. By Day 60 or so, after the left parties had been smashed, organized labor became
easier to co-opt.
On 1 May, Hitler's 90th day, he held the first national socialist May Day, only to dissolve the
unions altogether the following week and to incorporate them soon thereafter into the Nazi party-controlled
Labor Front.
With that, virtually every signature policy was in place. Germany was a full-fledged dictatorship.
The Nazi party, which had 850,000 members on Hitler's Day 1, had soared to 2.85 million on Day 100.
As for the Jews: on April 1, the Third Reich began systematic persecution with a one-day boycott
of Jewish businesses.
If we look at Mussolini, he seem slower paced, but only because Hitler had learned from the duce's
1922 coup, failed at his own first Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, and spent the next 10 years perfecting
his targets and timing.
In his first 100 days, Mussolini usurped power immediately by taking the key foreign and interior
departments for himself, obtaining emergency powers to push through fiscal and civil service reforms,
without parliamentary approval, and on
16 November 1922, by making
his first speech as prime minister to the Italian
chamber of deputies
, flaunting his power.
"I could have transformed this drab silent hall into a bivouac for my squads...I could have barred
the door to parliament and formed a government exclusively of fascists, he said, "but I chose not
to, at least not for the present."
To allay the establishment's suspicions of him as an ex-socialist, he made nice with the church
and he de-regulated wartime controls on industry, reversed land reforms, reduced inheritance taxes
and privatized telephone and telegraph services.
Like Hitler, he set up a parallel government. On 15 December, he set up a parallel cabinet in
the Grand Council. On 3 January, he turned his private army of black shirts into a national militia
loyal solely to him, not the king or the army. Failing to co-opt the left unions, he licensed his
squads to terrorize them.
People protested after a Black Shirts massacred 19 workers on 18 December at Turin, only to see
the government amnesty the squadristi five days later for having acted in the name of the
nation.
•••
President Trump, who started his 100 days with a Republican majority in Congress, immediately
showed his authoritarian impulses with his show-off immigration ban, only to see it overturned by
the courts, and he set up his National Security Council outside of normal channels, only to see his
main advisors unceremoniously removed.
Fortunately, the US has faced no national emergency to accelerate the tempo of his illegalities,
though the president has flailed around to invent one – or several – in terrorist immigrants, North
Korean missiles, terrorist attacks abroad, and the disloyal "party of the opposition" in the liberal
media.
However, with no significant activist base of his own, no special laws to suppress dissent, and
no monopoly over the media, he can't prevent the opposition from growing louder and louder. And the
liberal international order, no matter how dispirited at the US's harum-scarum leadership, is multilateral
and with substantial enough ballast in the United Nations, international treaties, and other powers,
notably China and the European Union to curb the worst saber-rattling
Whereas the establishment embraced Hitler and Mussolini, Trump has embraced the establishment.
That leaves us to conclude that after having fumbled around his first 100 days, the 45th president
will push ahead another thousand days in the time-honored ways of reactionary Republican regimes.
He has brought Wall Street into his inner circle, empowered the military to make national strategy,
reinforced racial antagonisms by enhanced policing, and by means of tariffs, regressive taxation,
and cuts in provisions for health, education, and welfare intends to further impoverish America's
most vulnerable citizens, his own white working class constituency included.
That leaves us to contemplate liberal democracy's greatest asset, namely, the tick tock of the
electoral cycle. By the end of their 1,000 days, Mussolini spoke of "Eternal fascism," and Hitler
of the Thousand Year Reich. Trump will have to face elections, and failed presidents get turned out
of office.
Victoria de Grazia is Professor of History at Columbia University. She has written numerous
books on fascism
The modern American is a wounded cornered animal, running from his own shadow. The Bully Pulpit
now belongs to the most wounded and insecure animal in America. The "president" fears more than
he understands, so he channels that fear into oppression, rather than admit his own shortcomings.
Fear of Freedom by Fromm sums it up nicely: "The lust for power is not rooted in strength but
in weakness. It is the expression of the inability of the individual self to stand alone and live.
It is the desperate attempt to gain secondary strength where genuine strength is lacking. The
word power has a twofold meaning. One is the possession of power over somebody, the ability to
dominate him; the other meaning is the possession of power to do something, to be able, to be
potent. The latter meaning has nothing to do with domination; it expresses mastery in the sense
of ability."
Promoting fear in order to cement power is the essence of authoritarianism..( which Erich Fromm,
having observed the effects, quite correctly sees as human weakness) rather odd that promoting
fear and bullying others seems so popular in a nation that proclaims to be enthusiastic about
'christianity'..
I dont like it at all.. too many idiots who are unable to feel safe without guns because they
live in fear..
No, Trump is not Hitler and he is not Mussolini. He has, however, with his policies and pronouncements,
followed a time-tested path to populist, fascist authoritarianism. He has rallied his base by
demonizing discreet and vulnerable minorities with false allegations of criminality and lack of
patriotism and by making absurd claims that foreigners and foreign governments are responsible
for the sense of economic disenfranchisement afflicting so many in the United States. He has waged
an unrelenting war on the press and our collective sense that an objective truth can be divined.
He has attacked the independant judiciary in a manner that betrays either a complete failure to
understand, or a thorough contempt for, our system of checks and balances. He has gone so far
as to say of our democratic structure that "It's a very rough system," ... It's an archaic system
It's really a bad thing for the country." It may be that the rapidity of the descent to facism
in pre-war Germany and Italy is more a reflection of the relative fragility of those democracies.
To assume that our institutions are immune from historically tried and true methods of delegitimization
is analogous to the "...it can't happen here" prelude to the worst atrocities in modern history.
We are fools if we whistle past this graveyard. This is not normal. It is extremely dangerous
and we all need to recognize that fact and respond accordingly with resistance at every level
and by speaking out loudly at every opportunity.
Here's where I'm at on Trump the fascist (to be a fascist someone does not need to be Hitler or
Mussolini and indeed fascism is a mass movement so it's a bit pointless focusing too much on the
individual), one definition of fascism that I've used a lot is this one from Robert Paxton:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation
or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party
of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional
elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical
or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
That definition almost exactly captures Trump and Trump_vs_deep_state except for the bit about violence
and expansion.
The "obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation [and] victimhood" pretty much
sums up his election campaign.
The "compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity," sums up his rallies.
The "committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional
elites," almost sums up his voter base.
The "abandon[ment of] democratic liberties" sums up some of his policies like the muslim ban.
He has displayed no "ethical or legal restraints" in his life let alone his presidency.
So the only bits we're missing are:
"redemptive violence" (let's ignore his calls to beat up protestors at his rallies) and "goals
of internal cleansing" (let's ignore his overt racism) and "external expansion." (fingers crossed).
Many of the checks and balances that were put in place by the US constitution (many of which
he has tried to circumvent) were to prevent someone like Trump doing his worse. So just because
the system has so far withstood a full blown dictatorship shouldn't mean that we shouldn't be
worried.
Trump has significant authoritarian tendencies which set him apart from previous republican
candidates.
Bannon's influence seems to have waned recently which might suggest he's moving away from the
far right (either by design or in response to the realities he's facing).
The big question with Trump however is what does he want?
Calling him a fascist is pointless unless we know what he's up to.
Is he "just" after money or power or does he have a specific political goal?
When he stirs up islamophobic and racial tensions or when he undermines the press, is he doing
this deliberately and why is he doing it?
I think he is doing it deliberately. He's a master manipulator. So that leaves the "why"?
It could be a divide and conquer thing but it could also be part of an ideology.
There's plenty of evidence that he is in fact racist.
Ok I apologise for linking to the Huffongton Post but one of the examples given is this:
"When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off
the floor," Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump's Castle, told the New Yorker for a September
article. "It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back."
If this story is true then this would indicate that he is in fact ideologically racist.
Fascist movements usually have an ideological and practical form of racism, but the latter
usually drives the former.
For example, the reason the Nazis targetted the Jews was because they wanted their stuff. They
then made up some bull shit ideology to justify taking it.
It's the same with the slave trade where it was really just about making money by selling human
beings and then was justified through pseudo science about black people having smaller brains.
With Trump there could well be the ideologcial but there's still the issue of the practical.
Practically how can he gain from his racism? Well he can gain power (by dividing and conquering)
and he might even make some money (by starting wars).
There also needs to be the right conditions for fascism to occur. Societies before were less
integrated and were easier to divide. It's harder to do that these days because races and cultures
won't stay in their boxes (which is part of the reason for the backlash).
So for me Trump is a fascist but he may hopefully be prevented from turning America into a
fascist state because of a large number of random factors.
Fascism is a totalitarian ideology which brooks no political opposition while allowing some private
ownership of the means of production. Sorta like China today, come to think of it. In any case
Trump hasn't made any move to shut down the Democrats or the Lefty-lib media. With both Left and
Right in the West accusing each other of being "fascist," it seems that Godwin's Law is getting
strong reinforcement.
It was the last administration which legalized "disappearing" people into secret prisons as well
as the Kill List, filled out by a secret committee. The one before that sort of legalized torture.
Names don't matter much. The USA has been drifting towards authoritarianism and disguised dictatorship
for a long time.
I think the national psyches of Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 30s was much different than
the US psyche(s) in 2017. The US hasn't been forced to pay huge war reparations to Britain and
France and hasn't been kept from having an effective military. The "nationalism" that Trump claims
isn't rooted in a real national humiliation, just a badly made fake one. On the other hand, there
were lots of such rationalizations before Hitler became a true menace.
As Bertram Gross predicted in Friendly Fascism , when it comes to America it will not take
the form that fascism took in Germany and Italy. It will have a friendly face, one most likely
with less overt brutality and without the public spectacles and perhaps even without an in-your-face
dictatorship.
But what it will have, at its base, is the ever increasing collusion of big business and big
government "in order to 'manage society' in the interests of the rich and powerful"
Donald Trump has eliminated the middle men. We now have government of, by and for big business.
Friendly fascism, American style.
Mussolini wasn't all talk and no action unfortunately. imprisonment, torture and murder of political
opponents on the part of his militia happened very frequently throughout the 20s, well before
hitler took power. They killed socialist mp giacomo Matteotti in 1924 for example.
Or have his alt-right propensities been coopted by the establishment he promised to oust?
On the contrary, the only Trump policy coopted by the "establishment" so far has been his antiwar
stance!
For years, he expressed strong opposition to Obama's war in Syria, he advocated good relations
with Russia, and at one point he even promised to pull all US troops out of South Korea. In his
first hundred days in office, under heavy pressure from the "establishment," he has turned sharply
against all of those positions, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.
The Guardian is one of many media outlets to have played a role in this process, though there
are obviously much stronger forces driving the imperialist killing machine than just its pro-war
media mouthpieces.
Fascism, like all the other 'isms' are so overused they have become impotent words with no actual
meaning anymore.
Like the way Brits overuse 'brilliant' or feminists overuse 'sexism' etc. The left have become
fascist themselves with all their bans on anything they don't like. [And I used to be left until
this rather infantile means of 'debate' became the norm for fake progressives.]
An article very similar to this one was published over a month ago by Stansfield Smith. Here
his idea has been fleshed out a bit in terms of historical background and watered down a bit in
terms of political clarity.
Regardless, it is true, and important to point out, that Trump is not a fascist. Fascism is
a violent mobilization of the middle class against the working class, an activist movement of
lynch mobs. It is capitalism's emergency Plan B when the charade of the democratic republic is
no longer possible. Trump is not part of such a movement or party, let alone the leader of one,
although the way he talks does embolden those who are, and in his administration, they do seem
to have some friends in high places.
I don't see the intelligence or the ruthless, murderous drive in Trump that an outright "fascist
dictator" needs. I see a willingness to upend the traditions of governance, but not much skill
in actually doing that since (so far, anyway) the courts keep laughing in his face. The thing
I see coming from him that's on a par with the infamous rulers referenced in the article is Trump's
evident delight in whipping up mobs of ignorant, wholly irrational and even delusional people
who adore him without reserve. In his apparent hatred of a free press and his love for political
spectacle over rational, measured discourse, he is justly mentioned alongside Hitler and Mussolini,
who went out of their way to appeal to people's desires and passions rather than to their minds.
Probably the main point of similarity would be the wish to do away with pesky legal inhibitions
getting in the way of doing what they want to do. Trump's plan for doing so however is to simply
cry 'wahh wahh wahh' until enough people cave in.
Fascism has a clear meaning defined by Mussolini as, corporatism, when the state is managed by
corporations and the wealthy. Fascism is a mindset that only the wealthy deserve to rule. Which is
blindly adhered to by the Petit Bourgeoisie.
For obvious reasons, fascists see organized labor, or
any organized opposition to their agenda, as their enemy. The bourgeoisie is too self absorbed to
even care about such things.
Trump is a master of obfuscation. Trump gibberish is now substituted
for official policy statements. While he is misdirecting our attention with blatant lies and gibberish,
he is working to undermine years of bipartisan work on policy that benefits we the people.
I thought this sounded rather odd so I did a quick search: "The foundation of Fascism is the conception
of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute,
in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their
relation to the State. " Source:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
There was also, in the late 20th century, a general public understanding of fascists as those
authoritarian policitians who would compel the public, burn books and have people beaten up.
The early 21st century definition of a fascist appears to be "anyone who disagrees with ME" to
a lot of people...
"...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history
of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various
social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... And
above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about romnraven's
characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian dictionary
definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than fascism.
There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly
such a conflation is nonsense.
I think the major difference between the US and the European experience is the timing between
the existence of a monarchy/aristocracy and the implementation of totalitarian rule. The US has always
been mostly democratic, even when the country was 13 colonies being ruled by a distant power. The
likelihood that people would "accept their fates" in the face of an autocrat is much less likely
here, whereas Germany still had experience with a monarch in the 20th century.
Fascism is defined
as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist state since Nixon
embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police state.
It is clear
Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether or not the US
is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations and a significant
percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated.
You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably
softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones."
I don't
believe Trump would succeed if he were, today, just to shut down Congress and ascribe by fiat all
political power to himself. That, the people and the legislative branch wouldn't allow.
But if there
is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever drastically
antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the legislative pipe,
effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt plutocrat and his family,
along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds an awful lot like fascist dictatorship,
doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it could.
I think you Americans don't grasp the concept of fascism. Trump is a wanna be authoritarian leader
and has some very backwards ideas, like Mussolini might have been, but you should not confuse ideology
with the form of government.
Back in the '20s, Italy was a parliamentary monarchy. It had a so called
flexible constitution, meaning that it could be easily changed to give the government extraordinary
powers to the detriment of the parliament, and this is exactly what Mussolini did.
He eliminated
the opposition parties both by changing the law and by force (he had the leader of the communist
party Giacomo Matteotti killed), while the king stood there doing nothing. The rest is in the article.
Trump does not have the power to do that, at least not alone.
But if the entire Republican party
allows him to get more power, shut out the congress and eliminate "unfriendly" judges, then the danger
will be a lot more real.
bobkolker 2d ago
Where are the Brown Shirts (or in Trump's case, The Orange Shirts). Trump was and is a
business man (of questionable quality, no doubt). He is not founding a Political Movement. So
far Trump has done nothing unconstitutional. One hundred days, and no Reichstag Fire! Imagine
that!
There is no doubt that Our Donald is inept in the Office he now occupies. And he does at times
lack couth. Also he has a twitchy tweeting thumb. But a Fascist???? Not even close.
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at the economic
disasters that have befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used
to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn.
Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring
that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what happened
last November a little more likely.
Would Trump supporters elect him again now? For some Trump voters
in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, their new president has already done more
than Obama – but others have had enough Every time our liberal leaders deregulated
banks and then turned around and told working-class people that their misfortunes
were all attributable to their poor education, that the only answer for them
was a lot of student loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time
they did this they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest,
in the manner of the New York Times , is not the answer to this problem.
Listening to the voices of the good people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan
is not really the answer, either. Cursing those bad people for the stupid way
they voted is an even lousier idea.
More obscene tax cuts for the rich, windfall deals for cronies, unparalleled
corruption, and utter and complete betrayal of the 99% (NO affordable healthcare,
war on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), and a LOSS of decent jobs engineered
by perhaps the most demagogic liar and despot wannabe' in recent times,
and YOU have the stones to talk about a 'Davos mindset'?
Double-speak and distortion worthy of those you apparently serve.
Good luck. The Dems just don't want to get it and unless individual Dems
start acting on their own for the good of all of us, who in the past were
strictly loyal to the party, then they'll lose again. What BC did with NAFTA
and his total disregard for decimating entire regions of the country by
doing so, with nothing to replace those jobs with but a snotty attitude,
will haunt them until they wake up. Sadly, for us, this isn't likely as
they will think once again that people will vote for whoever they toss up
just because Trump is so "deplorable". No one wants 4 more years of Trump,
not even those who voted for him.
Frank is still trying to turn American blue collar workers into European
style class warfare socialists.
Many (if not most) of the traditional jobs are not comng back, and only
a few are in China.
AUTOMATION.
Neither party can do anything about that.
We'd better start thinking about a much bigger labor force than available
jobs
A Tax on every Robot sufficient to fund a modern Welfare State and a Universal
Basic Income is what some propose to address this development. A 20 hour
work week doing community service work helping ones fellow citizens in some
constructive way?
Remember that a lot of people voted for Trump or abstained from voting altogether
(thereby basically giving the vote to Trump, as it turns out) because we
refused to vote for Hillary. Wisconsin voted for Bernie in the primaries.
I firmly believe that it was an intense distrust of Mrs. Clinton, and not
overwhelming faith in the promises and abilities of Donald Trump, that made
our state show red on Election Day. If Bernie hadn't been cheated out of
the race by her bottle blondiness, I'm relatively certain that he probably
might have won in a race against Uncle Don.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn."
Yup! And the means doing away with public sector unions in their present
form, it means securing the borders, it means getting big banks and wall
street under control, it means dropping the left wingnut social policies
and getting the government out of peoples lives, not the other way 'round.
Ain't gonna happen.
The liberal/progressive leftist totalitarians are in charge of the party,
and unless they change their ways, as previously described, they are going
to wander in the wilderness for a very long time.
The Democratic Party has gradually become the party of the status quo and
business as usual instead of the progressive-- working people's party--
it use to be under Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. Even Obamacare is a concept
originally conceived by the Republicans to force all Americans into the
arms of the private health insurance companies.
Instead of more trickle down economics, Democrats should be trying to
focus on creating a worker's paradise in order to re-energize the American
economy:
1. A 32 hour work week (overtime beyond 32 hours):
2. Up to six weeks of annual Federally mandated paid vacation
3. Reduction of individual income tax to just 1% for individuals that
make less than $60,000 a year
4. Employer payment of all Federal payroll taxes for all employees that
make less than $60,000 a year
5. A $1000 a year workers rebate from the Federal government if you work
full time or part time or employ full time or part time workers
6. Federal infrastructure program providing matching funds for cities
that want to build affordable urban-- rental housing-- for senior citizens
and the working class families and individuals, who don't own their own
home who make less than $60,000 a year.
7. Federal and employer financed medical savings accounts for all American
citizens
8. High tariffs (15% to 100%) on all imports coming in from nations that
are not free and democratic (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Low
tariffs (1% to 10%) on imports from nations that are free and democratic.
How Democrats could have ever gone along with allowing a fascist state like
China to have full and free trading access to the American economy is almost
incomprehensible (and it also cost Americans more than 3 million jobs)!
Lets review the key points of Democratic politics as they now pronounce
it (through words and action)
1 - Save the planet - translation - regulate any and all forms of energy
to be too expensive then subsidize renewable energy. This means a few major
companies will win huge government contracts to put up windmills while,
power plant operators, miners, natural gas workers and countless supporting
industries go dark.
2 - Identity Politics - Translation - Vast swaths of America are understood
only in context of their race, gender (chosen or otherwise) or political
perspective. They will be administered according to an as yet unpublished
preference chart favoring some over others. Meaning that individuals don't
matter and needs don't matter. Only that you fit into some defined category
where political messaging will tell you why your oppressed and that only
democrats can free you.
3 - Free Trade Agreements - In short - how to off shore manufacturing
to cheap labor countries. That one is very simple.
4 - Sanctuary Cities - People who arrived into this country illegally
will be protected from deportation, even identifcation as illegal regardless
of the law. This reduces the cost of labor for less skilled workers and
drives up costs - which drive up taxes to provide services. In point of
fact California is in the process of creating a single payer healthcare
system that will provide free (only if your don't earn and income) healthcare
to anybody in California - no questions asked.
What is missing? Jobs. There are zero plans to bring back jobs. The coasties
don't care about manufacturing. They only buy the highest quality imports
with the right labels on them anyway. Their answer - why more government
"programs" designed to robe Peter to pay Paul. Job training for jobs that
don't exist where people live, and often disappeared years ago.
Meritocracy?
The best of the best of the best?
Not for the Smugatocratic World Rigging Nepotistic 'Davos' Elite!
(Busy "Late Night" Offices)
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 1" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth My Dear Boy I really need you to do me a solid
you remember my Granddaughter Brittany?
Seth Myers
Ummm .Not really .?
Who is this?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
No matter .You met her last year at Davos
Seth Myers
Ahhh .I didn't actually go to Davos last year?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Well she just graduated from Emerson Gawd knows what they learn there?
AAAAAANYWAAAYS .
this whole "Clinton Kerfuffle" has kind of put us in a little bind
Seth Myers
Oh really?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
And Britt had her dear little heart set on interning with Hilly and Billy
Seth Myers
Oh....She did?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Now, she'd really like to work on your show
Seth Myers
My show?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Oh .She's a really good writer
Seth Myers
Writer .Wow .Why not just host?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
You think? Well, maybe?
K Thanks Gottah Run Love Yah' Bunches Britt will just be so thrilled!
See you at Davos .
Seth Myers
Wait I'm not go
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 2" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth .My Dear Boy I really, really need you to do me a solid you remember
my Granddaughter...Gemma?
Speaking of "Davos Ideology", it would help if people like Al Gore and Leo
Dicaprio didn't fly there on private jets to lecture people back home about
their carbon footprint. Midwesterners notice stuff like that. "Incongruities",
I believe, would be Mr. Frank's chatterati term for it.
Blue collar workers understand the laws of supply and demand just as well
as Harvard trained economists. The Democratic party's embrace of open borders
and amnesty is the exact same position as the Chamber of Commerce. Nearly
15% of America is foreign born and many of those people are competing with
citizens for jobs. Business loves it for holding down wages and the DNC
loves it for the future reliable Democratic voters.. Tech, medicine, and
higher education noticed how this policy has squeezed blue collar wages
and are manipulating H1B and other visa programs to do the same thing to
their 100k+ professional workers. The DNC loves the visa programs as well
mostly because of their addiction to big tech and other Silicon Valley donors.
I think the DNC is trying to come up with a policy to do the least possible
to attract these blue collar voters and still keep their billionaire new
economy donors happy.
Example, "Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned
around and told working-class people that their misfortunes were all attributable
to their poor education, that the only answer for them was a lot of student
loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this
they made the disaster a little more inevitable." Aside from Bill, democrats
are the party that believes in regulation and have many times fought republicans
from destroying them. What's happening now is just a return of republican
priorities. Lower regulation on nearly all business to include the financial
industry and the same old trickle down theory that has only increase income
and wealth inequality. Additionally, it was the Reagan administration that
began making higher education more a business that required student loans
to attend.
Special interests are intertwined with the Dems as much as they are with
Repubs now, that's what's changed. The article speaks of the neoliberal
policies that are destroying the Democratic party (deregulation, pro-corporate/anti-worker
policies).
Yes, Republicans do those things and always have, but the point is that
the Dems now do them too. And they need to step away from neoliberal policies
like that if they want to be relevant again.
A major cause of the deindustrialization of the US Midwest is offshoring
jobs. That isn't the fault of the Democrats.
In fact, while Trump jabbers about "bringing the jobs back to the US,"
he and his daughter Ivanka continue to manufacture their clothing lines
in such as Bangladesh, China, and Mexico. "Made in the America" is yet another
of his slogans fed to the stupid.
But I guess that Trump is a hypocrite and liar is the fault of the Democrats
too.
The problem with the rhetoric of this article is that it slings the usual
labels -- "neoliberal" -- without a clue as to their meaning. But that's
the nature of right-wing propaganda.
Well, like it or not, the main point that the democrats have been hollywoodized
and cannot bring themselves to go somewhere that arugula is not sold, is
true. As for making clothing in China, who knows what clothing manufacturers
there are left in the USA and whether they can do what is needed. You don't
know that.
The deindustrialization of the US is the result of corporate policies.
And while Trump jabbers about bringing jobs back to America, he and his
daughter continue to manufacture their clothing lines in countries where
they can pay the least in wages for the most in production. Chinese manufacturing
of Ivanka's now-relabeled clothing line pays $60.00 for a 57-hour week.
Obviously the author of this article either doesn't know those facts,
therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, or he makes no mention of
it in order to dishonestly bash the Democrats, who are NOT doing manufacturing
in Bangladesh, China, and other third-world countries.
Thomas Frank reveals the rage middle-class Midwesterners feel towards Democrats
and entrenched politicians. Over the past decade, he voiced this warning,
but it fell on deaf ears. Only one major television commentator dared to
express similar warnings, Ed Schultz, formerly of MSNBC. Schultz was removed
from MSNBC and forced off MSM. Frank was a frequent guest and commentator
on his and other main television news shows. Since the election, the major
broadcast news no longer invites Frank. Democracy, journalism and political
expression are diminished.
Peter
L. Winkler
BumbleDumble ,
20h ago Barack and Michelle Obama just signed a dual book deal giving them
$65 million dollars. And now he grabs at $400,000 for an hour long speech funded
by Wall Street. It's a shocking display of sheer avarice.
The United States has
dropped its largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat against Isis targets in Afghanistan.
But why drop such a gargantuan bomb in the first place? No one can have any sympathy for Isis and
its murderous offshoots, but you don't need to be a military expert to suspect something strange
might be going on here.
Since the US's stated objective was to destroy underground tunnels, wouldn't so-called bunker
buster bombs, which can also be huge and dig deep into the earth, serve the aims of this mission
just as well, if not better?
Look to the history of colonial warfare for the answer. The lands of the colonized have always
served as the western world's laboratory for the newest and worst weapons of war.
Bombs may have been with us since the invention of gunpowder, but the phenomenon of aerial warfare
is only as old as 1 November 1911, when
Libya became the first country to suffer a bombardment from the sky.
Late to the colonial scramble for Africa, Italy coveted Libya, then a province of the failing
Ottoman empire. In 1911, the Italians invaded the north African territory and that November, Lieutenant
Giulio Gavotti flew over Ain Zara, just east of Tripoli. Unbeknownst to his superiors,
Gavotti tossed four 1.5kg
grenades out of his window, pulling the pins with his teeth, and watching them explode on the oasis
town below. He later wrote that he was "really pleased with the result".
Just like today, the press went crazy with the news. The innovation of aerial warfare was mind
blowing. Gavotti was lauded as a true Italian hero, although Europe's professional warriors initially
thought otherwise. They considered the act beneath the rules of civilized combat. Their contempt
didn't last long, and a new era of aerial warfare, especially against "uncivilized" peoples, began.
In 1920, Britain took charge of Iraq, and a popular revolt quickly erupted. The Royal Air Force
responded with a new strategy they called "control without occupation". The thinking was that there
would be no need for large and costly contingents of soldiers on the ground if one could simply bomb
the local population into submission from the sky. And bomb they did. For days, weeks, and months
on end.
Churchill , who in 1919 had penned a memo stating that he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned
gas against uncivilised tribes", even pushed Air Marshal Trenchard in 1920 to "proceed with the experimental
work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives
without inflicting grave injury upon them". Historians now believe there wasn't enough mustard gas
to go around, so large-scale conventional bombing was left to achieve Britain's desired result in
Iraq.
The United States is not immune to such military opportunism either. The US fired its first depleted
uranium munitions during the 1991 Gulf war. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kgs)
landed in Iraq in that war, and depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, as old
as our solar system now is. The results have been spectacularly
terrible
throughout Iraq, with birth defects and cancer rates disturbingly elevated throughout the country.
The Russian military has exploited its campaign assisting the Assad regime in Syria to test out
162 new weapons systems, including new cruise missiles and long-range bombers. It would seem the
Russians are very proud of their new weapons. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu used the occasion of
Vladimir Putin's 63 rd birthday to
announce that Russia had fired cruise missiles at targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea, some
900 miles away.
Look at the countries mentioned thus far – Libya, Iraq, Syria, and
Afghanistan . Southeast
Asia of course also suffered terribly when it was the west's main laboratory of death and destruction,
but this list of countries should give us a sense of history regarding our current conflicts along
with some much-needed humility about the success of bombing people into submission.
This brings us to the GBU-43/B, a 22,600-pound bomb that is known as a Moab, officially a Massive
Ordinance Air Blast and unofficially a Mother of All Bombs. Developed for the 2003 Iraq war, each
GBU-43/B reportedly
costs $16m. The bomb, which explodes before impact and with a reported blast radius as large
as a mile in diameter, is the second largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal. It has never
been used before. Until now.
Once again, the territory inhabited by the "uncivilized" has been shelled so the west can try
out its new lethal toys. Forgotten in all of this is that bombs, especially ones this size, don't
affect only people. Munitions may be aimed at enemies, but an enormous bomb such as this kills plant
life massively as well. When such a bomb detonates, a percussive blast destroys everything in it
fatal path, shattering the insides of humans and animals alike.
The air is literally sucked out of the atmosphere to feed the jealous fire created by its explosion.
The aim of such a bomb is to kill enemies but at what consequence to our earth? There is something
narcissistic to think that bombs of this enormity are an attack on humanity. In fact, they are an
assault on all forms of life.
-->
Devondaddy ,
13m ago
The MOAB used in Afghanistan was almost exactly the same size as Barns Wallace's Grandslam' bomb
deployed by the RAF against the Nazis in 1945.
Sorry if that doesn't fit with the narrative, but in conflict the most appropriate weapons are deployed
irrespective of who the enemy are.
Try reading a little military history if you are going to write about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb
)
Oh, Poison Gas was first used, on Europeans, by Europeans.
Nuclear weapons only use was not on `uncivilised tribes`, but an Industrial Nation, Imperial Japan.
Mostly, we used the most sdvanced weapons, to kill other western forces: only then, were they
used in Colonial wars. Custers men at the Little Big Horn, used single shot rifles, the only repeating
rifles were used by some of the Native Americans. He could have taken `Gatling Guns`he refused!
"The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors did join the battle with a number of Henry and Spencer repeating
rifles" https://www.wired.com/2009/06/dayintech_0625
/
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm
http://custerlives.com/7thcav11.htm
Of course The West doesn't do things like this - as far as its own self portrait is concerned.
You won't find any shade of the opinion of this commentator in the items singing the praises of
America's massive WMDs in the media today. They are so excited about the size of the bomb! About
the message it sends about the West's Greatness. I daresay most men of god will similarly support
it this Sunday by not mentioning the obscenity of calling the bomb a "mother" or deploying it
at Easter. It's just so Christian - killing people of lesser gods en masse at what the West regards
as the holiest time of the year.
Failing banana republics like the US need to distract as much as possible from the domestic problems.
Dropping big bombs in Afghanistan makes Americans think they are still powerful, while the country
is collapsing like a cheap tent.
Note, in the below - famous - Churchill memo on the use of `poison gas` he states quite clearly
the type he envisages using: "making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas".
Lachrymatory means tears/crying, in other words tear gas, formally known as a lachrymatory
agent. He had been in the Trenches, the effects of Mustard gas on the Eyes, Skin & Lungs would
have been familiar to him, read the memo yourself, does it sound like WWI poison gasses: Chlorine,
Phosgene or Mustard gas, was being proposed? Note: the blinded of Mustard Gas, could have lived
until the late 20th Century, why no accounts of them blinded as children, great anti British propoganda,
so why has no such tales of gas blindings from the 1920`s ever been reported from Iraq?
" as shown in a War Office minute of 12 May 1919 in which Winston Churchill argued
:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted
the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent
method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a
bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly
in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good
that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most
deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror
and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
It amazes me, well, not anymore, how ignorant Americans are. This "Mother" bomb is not the biggest
ever used. One of them yes, but the RAF used a 22,000 pound bomb called the Grand Slam. Carried
by the Avro Lancaster, it was used for highly reinforced positions like U boat pens.
Reply Share
Biggest in terms of the amount of explosives inside it. Grand Slam had just less than half the
amount of explosives inside it that the MOAB does. We used to have a few empty Grand Slam casings
laying around on one of the MoD sites I worked at. Extremely thick steel, to say the least.
Reply Share
Grand Slams were designed to go deep into the ground and explode creating an underground chamber.They
were also known as earthquake bombs.The largest high explosive bomb was the Blockbuster. A 12000lb
bomb 3/4 of the weight of the bomb was the contents.It was designed as a blast bomb.
Reply Share
I spent a bit of my MoD career working with what was euphemistically referred to as "energetic
materials". We had quite a few WW2 relics at one of the sites. From bits of Tallboy and Grand
Slam casings, to all different types of MC and HC bombs. Last I heard the scrappy got his hands
on them, so they're probably baked-bean cans by now.
I have figured out 90% of the US government activity is selling BS to the American people so that
they can continue doing what they're doing without being questioned.
In the big scheme of things this is a big bomb to take out supposedly a large depot of arms
belonging to the ISIS terrorists who were about to commence their spring offensive in that area.
Americans have done bombings like this before (not with MOAB ~~ but hundreds of smaller bombs).
But, the "public relations" aspect of this bombing was just out of this world. For example retired
general McCaffrey on MSNBC said this is a weapon of terror (he meant it in a good way). It terrorizes
ISIS and anyone who cooperates with them. I guess he meant in a "shock and awe" way. The American
media is cheering this, as if no one in the world knows US has nukes and can blow everyone off
the face of the earth several times, until they deployed this weapon. You hear from the talking
heads and their echo chambers, this is going to give a message to the North Koreans and this or
that group. The message North Koreans, and this or that group is getting is US has a huge amount
of weapons, a big military, but after fighting for 16 years in an impoverished country, with a
GDP of $3 billion, US has resorted to biggest nonnuclear weapon in its arsenal to show how tough
they are. The message this sends to the rest of the world is US military is impotent and incompetent,
so is the US government.
"... Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk it. ..."
"... Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news? Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that the only person able to determine reality is Donald Trump? Good lord. ..."
"... It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a day after Trump decided not to remove Assad. Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed, they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the first time. ..."
Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he
completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to
the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk
it.
Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news?
Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that
the only person able to determine reality is Donald
Trump? Good lord.
I know, right? Check out comments on any Brietbart news
story, though, and you'll how typical of a select
minority of Americans that kind of thinking represents
(suggest you wear earphones to block out the cacophony
of thousands of bleeting sheep).
It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a
day after Trump decided not to remove Assad.
Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed,
they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the
first time.
johnbonn ,
2h ago
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise
the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel
factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in
the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West
has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has
ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of
family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it
and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered
anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said
Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said
how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want." These are
the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president.
The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and
Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still,
more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally
displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton,
who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change?
And Syria is not the only country were this happened.
Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living
local people to pick up the pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of
jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women
can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a
career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where
women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in
their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
"... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
"... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation
of an outside government.
Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has
proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention
doubtful.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led
war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning
the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.
Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed
Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors
to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation
into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding
regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically
it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching.
Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans
remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive.
If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its
cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just
wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians,
men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul,
dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale,
wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a
sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held
parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates
in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush
called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember
the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the
UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again,
yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the
unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to
be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their
aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this
chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce
officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his
hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied
the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on
a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical
statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our
democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other).
Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing
with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might
suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt
a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence
people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this
war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to
disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria,
has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic
British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British
and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure
will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982
Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations
who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it
became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian
can reveal.
His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were
party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains
very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to
render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the
innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war
commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not
another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We
would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter
if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are
all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia.
The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison
said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are the same people who elected
Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six
of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed
in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and
supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any
responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the
pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves
have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in
public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made
virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they
do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of
what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice
B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life
on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be
laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously
believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow
deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children
were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those
who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime,
but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and
by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime
change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis
raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all
of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is
to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all
of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily
with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that
they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing
democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources
and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence
that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east
and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help
of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep
State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced
and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking
about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with
him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every
oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced
millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia
against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal)
dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the
threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing,
the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam
Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of
civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations
like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community
service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman
going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be
worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt
to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be
it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to
comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority
vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be
entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should
require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance
should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid
and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants
to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the
same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders
who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century.
Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their
willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government,
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising
they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards
the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian
government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global
economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted
to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy',
the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising
the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia.
There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from
exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to
the right.
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about
the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it
is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed
commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/
Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against
Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the
face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians,
whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same
reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western
public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly
this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not
even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers
in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast
majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358
and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance,
of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January
2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps
it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime
change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately
islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is
a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls
short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct
in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't
rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations
of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job",
and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy
grail, "yellowcake uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and
perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative
government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government
in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected
leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure
public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as
Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and
give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to
mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility
of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country
indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly
seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs
or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how
Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since
then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat
acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including
the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper)
as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on
(Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways
the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left.
David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose
the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra
both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war.
The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are
clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely
the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as
well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together
to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google
it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google
it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his
fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk
about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in
the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our
disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight
against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot
travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or
antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than
Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely,
it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries
including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete
chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians,
Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad
ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud,
even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the
opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad
is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the
greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq,
where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy
always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether
the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask
the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who
have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc
2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They
can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around
the world changing who's in charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to
go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots
get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death
squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can
sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian
readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb
fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year.
The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in
the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set
up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record
for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's
untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum
will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially
pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of
the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit
of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately
elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan
have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing
so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost
of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical
control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the
job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white
minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people
themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms
race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree
in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US
did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have
happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later?
Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently
checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does
the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads
etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should
stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the
case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson
need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy
of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa
put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance
of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided
by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be
carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before
all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will
likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto!
A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any
Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically
insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals.
These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International
Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is
that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing
and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air
support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also
die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him
just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with
one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a
country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all
of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals
using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders
who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd
rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle
east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes
in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional
explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree
on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve
freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a
ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom,
then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there
is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those
regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields
were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos
online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in
now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the
city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was
moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when
they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got
no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through
western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single
american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's
world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of
Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our
intervention could scarcely make things any worse
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise
for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth
making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's
decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration
from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy,
something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough
to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates
in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have
fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation
of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet"
for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst
pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does
not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace
talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest
of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces?
I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime
change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to
the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons
to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as
Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care.
How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it
all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords
backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will
mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces
in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting
back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions
from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and
with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its
forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And
what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of
Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world
demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in
whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the
Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding
the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed
the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East
and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive
under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia,
Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment,
other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete
result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards
Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the
Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as
Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No
one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we
want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the
last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than
desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests
and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps
only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought
together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment
from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism
and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great
track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy
to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to
support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious
power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy
disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians
who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a
dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty
much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record
on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called
''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because
of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the
takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign
jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after
they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save"
and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading
and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts
to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who
out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles
is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure
that makes things drastically worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that
someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent
supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and
ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and
incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and
abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that
later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to
help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's
a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes
sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally
serving him, aren't limitless.
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove
their liberality, they allowed Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting
Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason
for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible
for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack
before yet again demanding regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about
collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks
under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been
engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army,
and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using
chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly
prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went
on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the
guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible
for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't
think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed
hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I
could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the
real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes
on the regime airbase carrying a sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Latest update : 2016-04-17
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections
last week across government-held parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced
late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain
and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham),
the "folk" – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New
York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember the War on Terror? Remember
the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in
the UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it
crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west
to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader,
struggling to maintain the unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be
a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to be the psychopathic monster that he
is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on
every airstrike made by their aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile.
Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this chemical attack would end up being
a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low
or medium ranking Syrian airforce officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival,
and as such, has blood on his hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does
Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied the numerous rebel groups with
billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit
mass indiscriminate murder on a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared
her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her
sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're
democracy might not be our democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the
like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other). Syria until we started messing with
it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing with
its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries
in the area. (Our actions might suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries
in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the
world we should probably adopt a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory
situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main
protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government
and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the
military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government
and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet
another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people.
Syria was a paradise before the British and US did their usual work. The journalists, government
and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure will not escape the consequences
of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any
opposition to their rule. In 1982 Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege
of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations who have their headquarters
in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different
ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed
at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have
been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with
Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting
"collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace
Assad and in Syria he remains very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise
the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel
factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive
in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the
West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design
that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family
owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain
and Iraq, but didn't. We would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central
authoritarian leader. No matter if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or
whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it
and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered
anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said
Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said
how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are
the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president.
The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs
and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse
still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have
been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton,
who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria
is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any responsibility taken for their
actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living
local people to pick up the pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of
jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women
can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a
career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where
women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in
their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian
Christians who are terrified of what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection
of Islam. Basically Choice B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
Assad would stand a good chance of winning a fair and honest election,
Still waiting for evidence by forensic experts over the chemical weapons , who did what and where.
Until proof is given hat prove otherwise the rebels are the most likly suspects.
-->
normankirk
, 12 Apr
2017 15:35
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions
and possible extinction of life on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers
that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably
because no-one would seriously believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers.
Let alone imply they somehow deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by
a terrorist organisation. The children were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers'
so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those who produced the report
on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course
a crime, but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including
children in Mosul and by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran
and in Ukraine. Attempted regime change has also been used often in South America to oust populist
rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis raises the very good point that change
has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all of the
death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start
from. The point that is to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except
in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all of those against the Syrian government
in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily with terrorists
making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world
order drive. The fact that they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically
elected governments tells clearly that imposing democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention
in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources and gaining ground for business
opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving
democrats. We have ample evidence that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another
regime change in the middle east and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag
gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated
by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S.
Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria
but a hugely powerful Deep State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million
have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a
lot of the refugees you're talking about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible
leader but atleast with him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's
obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every oil producing country in the Middle
East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq. Both
Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the
lives of thousands and displaced millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop
supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance
, not democracy. A good(brutal) dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader
, look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More
like defending them against the threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing
troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat
of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps
impossible given Russias backing, the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's
unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam Hussein and even his father,
from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth
do you enforce any sort of civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist
organizations the world has ever known. With organizations like ISIS around, a government is gong
to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community service
and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those
who have no problem with a woman going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He
is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be worse. As in the case of the
butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an
attempt to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone
believe whoever follows Assad be it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so
tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about
time that they are compelled to comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly
to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against
humanity. Syrians should be entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to
secure Syria's future. It should require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence
to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance should be met with expulsion and
the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western
governments can do is provide aid and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those
countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser
extent, France, are in fact the same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi
Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change
against the Middle Eastern leaders who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the
Middle East for nigh on a century. Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's.
That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door
of the 'Western Powers' and their willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into
abandoning the Syrian Government, so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in,
like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising they have been towards the Russians
and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards the
Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians,
and ignoring the Syrian government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate,
as it does with the global economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy
conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted to making merciless and unjustified
attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make
Russia out to be 'the bad guy', the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming
Russia and demonising the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home,
to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia. There you will find more demons disguised
as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic
prevented this cartel from exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven?
The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to the right.
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off
a wounded animal
Your point is of great importance.
Now that Russia has done the dirty work at great cost, pushing them out of the way.........................
That will not happen, Rex was told by Sergei.
robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Is meant to be the joke of the month.
What did they ever fix ? Just look what the Korean war has lead to.
Vietnam, where the Americans were defeated, is now a united and peaceful country.
On the other hand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other regime change candidates have been reduced
to failed states.
In Syria, the fate of the Alwites will be the same of that of women and children cowering in
St Sophia in 1453.
Utter slaughter!
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian
version of events about the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see
is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it is known that the bigger terrorist organisations
such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed commentators
have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/
Alawite/Christian/ Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's
Shiites, fighting for their very survival against Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi
fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the face of the
earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for
bombing civilians, whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same
thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same reasons. The rebels take over and then surround
themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western public opinion
against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now
behaving in exactly this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its
own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not even Syrians. It was always a war that the
west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers in
that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's
why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia
allies have slaughtered the vast majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime
is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
Syria is finished.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist
groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000
that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians
requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within
Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January 2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684
registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet
local petty king in the area keeps it stable and does not a politically costly military operation,
everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different
in goals. If the goal of regime change is achieved and political points collected, everything
else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately islamist", "democratic" rebels
may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries
affairs, the end product is a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can
only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change
for once, but it still falls short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to
help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and
universal truth. History doesn't rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion.
All the way down to allegations of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation
of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job", and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler".
All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy grail, "yellowcake
uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting
of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage
for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is
the political position of the conservative government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia.
So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government in what they want,
not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more
right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want
to oust a tyrannical and unelected leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups
of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels
(freedom fighters) I'm quite sure public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on
a pedestal of righteousness as Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to
view their actions after Iraq and give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country
has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to mention the incredible numbers of
dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge
ignoring even the possibility of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The
idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country indefinitely putting a lid on
refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists
commenting on here as he is clearly seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in
their droves due to gas, bombs or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large
number of comments on here in relation to this article and how Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over
the last remnants of the FSA. Since then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively
hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed
several other "rebel" group, including the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped
by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper) as "opposition" during the
recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something
all the local powers agree on (Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an
independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult
decision that was in many ways the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with
the UK public from right to left. David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing
of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose the US war machine, it took them
all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband
saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you
hear it from them they are anti-war. The American working class understands what war is like in
the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are clearly anti another war in
the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting
and massacring civilians. And surely the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words
you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab
countries must come together to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham
Palace with the Queen(google it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in
Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies
such as Hezbollah, thus his fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part
due to oil interests, they talk about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They
talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in the region after the Iraq war,
and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
A regime changing in Syria?
Can someone here try and convince me that the State of Syria still exists?
And change it from what to what?From a Murderouscracy to a Oppressionocracy?
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and
that springs directly from our disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely
we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight against ISIS just as the far more
horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts
to take hold. But Assad cannot travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At
least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or antithetical. Putin has backed the
wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad
is a better leader for Syria than Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things
if Assad is deposed. More than likely, it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with
the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked
by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and
allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime
change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the
rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful
country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK,
whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the
Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make
the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress
because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked
by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and
allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime
change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the
rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful
country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK,
whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the
Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make
the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress
because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting
not only all ME countries including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it
all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia,
regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population
is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Kurds. Who is going to make
a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz
Assaad ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled
by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud, even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back
swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the
minority's in Syria. All of the opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists.
They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad is a murdering bastard but he
kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is
secondary. In particular, the greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is
the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq, where it simply does not work.
Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria.
This is a fantasy - as democracy always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in
renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether the West is just naive in
these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to
mask the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame
on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief
diplomat or his UN envoy, who have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this
is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US
arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of
the international rule book sinc 2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times
and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia
to change the regime in Kiev. They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass
interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in
charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and
we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted
or just let the despots get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate
their opposition, utilise death squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and,
outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple
answer... just hope everyone can sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate
our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals
and helping the Saudis cluster bomb fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni
kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni
hospital on the BBC last year. The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties
and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in the Commons - what is it about the
British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set up
an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted
to beat his father's record for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but
it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's untutored idea of elections is
surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad
falls, anarchy due to vacuum will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular
and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially pressuring the countries that feed
the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of the
infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over
the world , mainly for the benefit of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one
only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately elected governments
were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions
in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more
deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing so called "moderate" terrorists
seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around
the world , or even the cost of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people
, but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical control games that is the true
beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame
David Cameron and get on with the job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite
in that case if the white minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that
hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern
bloc were initiated by the people themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the
Soviet Union caused by an arms race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly
war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary.
Such thinking has a long pedigree in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed
American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the
duration of the cold war. If US did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment
about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances.
The cold war would not have happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent,
a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault.
Shoot first questions later? Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply
cannot blame someone without having the facts independently checked out. Yet they didn't wait
and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing
and droning and etc, why does the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons
of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads etc etc -- where profits are made by arms
manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only
realistic alternatives. We should stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still
a rush to judgement when the case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely
Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West,
including the petulant Boris Johnson need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose
your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy of the British government
would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and
Theresa put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would
probably leap at the chance of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic
patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/
ethnic allegiances need to be carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria
and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners
ask them that is what they will likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few
thousand people and hey presto! A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie
Sanders's, or practically any Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green
Party members is statistically insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western
capitals, and their Gulf vassals. These are the only group of people in the entire planet who
talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product'
is that International Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership,
does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile,
Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing and exporting the goods
the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need
weapons, tanks, missiles, air support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom
and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also die by the sword. For the U.S. to
stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not
liking him at all to liking him just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in
the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which
aligned itself with the USSR with one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and
Libya to see that. Nor does a country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants
any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the
rebels? The one certainty in all of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what
I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed
war crimes – bombing hospitals using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation
creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime
change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump
and Putin you have two leaders who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back
down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd rather pursue a misguided policy
rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does
not seem likely in the middle east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt
and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked
ordinance is likely to be conventional explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute
(reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts
with its own title), but we disagree on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have
been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve freedom although their
reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled
by a ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding
enough blood for their freedom, then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least
peaceful countries on earth, include Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where
"regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there is arguably an ongoing
attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even
when the behaviour of those regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the
local populace as human shields were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves
doing it and posted the videos online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo
to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do
with it? Did the US led forces in now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge
terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the city? Also for all world heritage
sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was moved
to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even
muslim graveyards when they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to
save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult
to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through western
capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly
not a single american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled
to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not
work is 'the west' dusting off it's world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a
policy favouring the removal of Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of
an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties
so grotesque that our intervention could scarcely make things any worse
The US?
Syria?
Regime change?
Moi?
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy
into attempting to apologise for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used
chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a
distraction from the president's decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making
to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television
interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the
same time he wants a ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure
for being a Russian patsy, something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to
Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then
why wouldn't they be sleazy enough to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state
amongst the masses before it culminates in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone
who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers,
doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have fled to Europe, or are currently
being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy
is reduced through the participation of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered
a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone
who is now merely a "puppet" for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance
to those in distress, whilst pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons
to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who
could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM
and governments, because it does not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian
government. It was refused participation when the first peace talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have
a hotline to Trump and the rest of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't
do regime change" pieces? I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal
war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue
to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to
ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons to the combatants (should they
be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime
change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been
quite actively engaged.
Trump told him over some cake?
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of
his actions. Nor does he care. How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would
be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it all by himself. Some one needs to
step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
terests, Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria,
it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of
refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in
Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between
NATO affiliated forces in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot
more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting back on military spending and very few European
countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions from
the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic
terrorism throughout Europe and with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars
that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its forces into the non-Russian
caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality.
And what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term
interests? The destruction of Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants
from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world demanding hard action against
Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be
in whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial?
Well... there's two countries in the Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return?
Will anyone invest in rebuilding the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia
or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect
the refugees in the Middle East and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be
forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to
Russia and allows Syria to survive under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally...
and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Gulf monarchies
would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that
can rule Syria at the moment, other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build,
that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete result as our attempt in Iraq
shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian
and Alawite regions go towards Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni
areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined
and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as Iran, would
never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria
as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular
Arab leader is toppled. No one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless
of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders
and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either
Turkish expansion (which, the last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories)
or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than desirable). We have no friends in
the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests and
I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain
the balance of power. Perhaps only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni
and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure
whilst different factions are brought together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation
commission, and a commitment from the international community and other bodies independent of
the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism and corruption. The dogmatic
belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair,
Assad does not have a great track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad
or do you think it will be happy to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There
is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad
was sponsored by multifarious power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy
utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy disastrously. The country now needs to
be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the
opposition are awful sectarians who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible
to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than
not understand "protectorate" pretty much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
One day spent in assad's syria and Michael williams would be calling for regime change as well.
Idiots thousands of miles living in comfortable lives have no idea the horror the syrian people
have been going through for the last 7 years under this cruel barbaric regime of assad.
Assad has killed more arabs than israel in only three years
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
"He uses indiscriminate weapons such as 'barrel bombs' and chlorine gas on a regular basis against
his own citizens."
Not to mention the thousands tortured to death in his prisons, the use of starvation as a weapon,
the denial of aid and the deliberate targeting of hospitals and medical staff. All carefully documented.
Yet, strangely, he has no shortage of apologists prepared to deny his crimes.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the
record. So is john Kerry, on record on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs
of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called ''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled
out of the deal (all because of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through
Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and
acted alone initiating the takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision
of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign jihadists eventually came to a standstill
without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take
place behind the scenes after they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that
crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in
the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong
damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading and proof of the failure
of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum
in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the
wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely
desirable. Witness Kissinger who out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests
through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be
done' brigade. Popping those bubbles is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently
agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure that makes things drastically
worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest
first"). Rather appalling that someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style
analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame
for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism
and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It
didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual
government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
Eventually Assad will lose. He started a sectarian bloodbath he simply can't win. The Russians
and the Iranian-backed Shia jihadists will only delay the inevitable outcome.
If Assad is lucky, he and his family may escape with their lives.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his
own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed
into a civil war, aided and abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West,
with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that later, as it looked like the recognized
govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps
we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let
alone his armed forces? He's a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one
groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes sense to assume that his powers over
an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally serving
him, aren't limitless.
"... "The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and "Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality". ..."
"The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that
are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime
forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and
"Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality".
almost all the increment in incomes
has been harvested by the top 1%. As values,
principles and moral purpose are lost, the promise of growth is all that's left.
You can see the effects in a
leaked memo
from the UK's Foreign Office: "Trade and growth are now priorities
for all posts work like climate change and illegal wildlife trade will be scaled
down." All that counts is the rate at which we turn natural wealth into cash. If this
destroys our prosperity and the wonders that surround us, who cares?
We cannot hope to address our predicament without a new worldview. We cannot use
the models that caused our crises to solve them. We need to reframe the problem. This
is what the most inspiring book published so far this year has done.
In
Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
, Kate
Raworth of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute reminds us that
economic growth was not, at first, intended to signify wellbeing.
Simon Kuznets
, who standardised the measurement of growth, warned: "The welfare
of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income." Economic
growth, he pointed out, measured only annual flow, rather than stocks of wealth and
their distribution.
Raworth
points out that economics in the 20th century "lost the desire to
articulate its goals". It aspired to be a science of human behaviour: a science based
on a deeply flawed portrait of humanity. The dominant model – "rational economic
man", self-interested, isolated, calculating – says more about the nature of
economists than it does about other humans. The loss of an explicit objective allowed
the discipline to be captured by a proxy goal: endless growth.
The aim of economic activity, she argues, should be "meeting the needs of all
within the means of the planet". Instead of economies that need to grow, whether or
not they make us thrive, we need economies that "make us thrive, whether or not they
grow". This means changing our picture of what the economy is and how it works.
The central image in mainstream economics is the circular flow diagram. It depicts
a closed flow of income cycling between households, businesses, banks, government and
trade, operating in a social and ecological vacuum. Energy, materials, the natural
world, human society, power, the wealth we hold in common all are missing from the
model. The unpaid work of carers – principally women – is ignored, though no economy
could function without them. Like rational economic man, this representation of
economic activity bears little relationship to reality.
So Raworth begins by redrawing the economy. She embeds it in the Earth's systems
and in society, showing how it depends on the flow of materials and energy, and
reminding us that we are more than just workers, consumers and owners of capital.
If people can:
1. understand the nature of money which
is in fact energy
2. bypass fiat currencies and therefore
Immune to all the misery from these fake
money (such as unfair wealth
distribution...etc)
3. have some elementary-math
understanding about energy constraint by
https://1drv.ms/o/s!AlY9OXkn9NHujFuH2HElKWc3WgeJ
A proper land tax, progressive taxation
and a utter ruthless pursuit of those
that don't pay their share. Oh and,
here's a thought, corporation tax not
set at a pissy ridiculous level. But
then the great British public always
vote for the opposite of all these
things. Well done!
Reply
Share
Let down in the last few sentences.
Idealised models are all well and good
but the crucial issue is the current
wealth distribution and the unequal
power that stems from it. We now live in
an era of nationalist autocracies, a
necessary carapace for post capitalism
but definitely not a prerequisite for
the kind of model you describe.
Reply
Share
Constant economic growth also
necessitates a pyramid scheme of
constant population growth to supply
labor.
In Western countries with low birth
rates and high salaries, this translates
into our oligarchs adopting the
neoliberal model of immigration,
globalization, and free trade.
From a certain perspective, all the
recent political upheaval in the West
(Brexit, Trump, Etc.) can be described
as the working classes realizing what
"constant growth" and resulting
neoliberalism means for them and their
children personally.
Another interesting model is that of the
Gift-economy, the system that dominated
the world during millenia (and persists
somewhat today). In its extreme form -
the potlatch - an entire society's drive
is based on how much wealth it can give
away, not take. Georges Bataille
described this as "feneral economics"
whereas academic economists' mumblings
he called "restricted economics", a
purely useless attempt to erase life.
Time to read him and the anthropologists
(Mauss, Bloch, Mead, Levi-Strauss) who
described this, again.
State-owned banks
would
invest in projects that transform our
relationship with the living world,
State owned banks? As in a
nationalised banking alternative....in
Britain?
Mention the word "nationalisation" in
London and the Home Counties and
everyone, from the middle-classes
upwards, immediately assumes this must
mean a return to Miners strikes, a three
day week, power cuts, flared trousers,
beer and sandwiches, formica kitchen
workops, the lot!
State-owned banks is what we got
after the 2008 banking crisis. But if
your suggestion is that politicians
can make better investment decisions
than commercial banks and with access
to all the money printing power of
the economy then that would be truly
scary.
Reply
Share
Nothing wrong with flared trousers or
miners' strikes ot Formica. And even
power cuts would be tolerable if they
meant absence of HIV, 3-day weeks and
a thoroughly humiliated, depressed
Establishment - my idea of heaven :)
Reply
Share
This looks like an extension to John
Elkington's triple bottom line model
published in 1997, updated to embrace
the advance of social enterprise and to
acknowledge the ever greater impact of
global warming.
I'd will have to read
the full book to understand this new
model better. It would be interesting to
see how any government, in power or in
waiting, could articulate real
objectives associated with this model to
give a sense that we were on a better
economic journey than present.
Thoughtful and well presented article..
BUT...Until money and the worship of
power it creates is relieved of its God
like status..the 'opening' towards a
more sustainable values system continues
to be a very tough sell...in essence,
the door remains closed..
Reply
Share
An economic model is supposed to
describe way the economy actually works,
not the way you would like it to work.
To judge that I suppose I will have to
read the book and perhaps some critical
reviews, since you can't get and sense
of that from Monbiot's article. Does it
provide a better forecast about the
effect of Brexit for example? would it
have predicted the financial crash of
2008? If it can't do these things then
it isn't an economic model but it might
be a philosophy or belief system like
Zen Buddhism and should be treated with
the same level of detachment we would
apply to such faiths, including that of
Monbiot.
One where people were incentivised to
mis-price assets and not
de-incentivised from doing so.
Because one of the rules of an
economic model is that people respond
to incentives.
People declaim that "economics" is
dead as proved by 2008, whereas what
the crash actually proves is that
ignoring some of the incentives means
you don't understand what people are
doing.
"Economics" is not the model, it's
the modelling process. Climatology,
to pick another modelling discipline,
has produced some astoundingly wrong
results in the past -- the 1970s
cooling hypothesis, for example --
but we don't declare it dead, we let
it have more goes in the hope of
getting outputs which help us
understand the world.
I mistakenly gave you a thumbs up
before I realized that "tawhid"
refers to the monotheistic belief
that muslims adopted from the older
Jewish religion (islam and
christianity both being Jewish
religions). Just religious propaganda
on your part, in other words.
Religion is a load of crap so I take
back my thumbs up. Fuck "God". Fuck
religion.
Your earlier post about
the interview with Banisadr looks
more interesting.
We are converging on a realisation that
we have things catastrophically wrong
and continue to do so. George
understands,
Kate clearly understands
and
Peter Joseph
more than understands
to create a movement. I've hopefully
tried to connect Peter and Kate through
Twitter, Kate has responded favourably.
Currently reading '
The
New Human Rights Movement'
and have
'Doughnut Economics' on order. We have
solutions but will we overcome
resistance in culture due to ignorance
and religion? I hope so but have little
'faith' in the way that humanity is
conducting itself with regard to itself
and the planet.
Tell it how it is Peter and Kate. We
need a new direction toward happiness,
sustainability and understanding. Our
current power structures are crumbling
and rightly so...
Sadly it will probably take a
catastrophic collapse before any new
model is implemented. It was only in
the wake of WW2 that social welfare
systems and health services were set
up in western countries. I am fearful
of what we might have to endure
before a political consensus emerges
that a new economic model is needed.
Reply
Share
>"It was only in the wake of WW2 that
social welfare systems and health
services were set up in western
countries."
Grossly untrue. Such
systems, albeit primitive compared to
the NHS but not the state pension,
were pioneered by Bismarck (a
conservative!) in Germany around
1870. The German healthcare system
still suffers from a "first adopter"
syndrome.
"then demand that those who wield power
start working towards its objectives:" -
I am very willing. Do you think an email
will do the trick?
Reply
Share
I think this probably counts as an
interesting economic description but I
don't see it as a great leap forward of
understanding at the practical level.
The advice for how an economy should be
run as opposed to the current approach
doesn't change. Forget deficits and
surpluses, forget growth and don't
obsess about inflation, in a well run
economy, these things will look after
themselves.
A well run economy is one which
maximises its main potential, which is
its workforce by trying to ensure
they're in gainful employment (less than
2% unemployment)
. Gainful employment
means not massaging the numbers by
making delivery drivers self-employed or
using zero hours contracts but having
people do useful work for proper wages
and if the private sector can't always
supply it then the public sector should
- that is real work not just New-Labour
bean counting (measuring what other
people do). Do that and you will always
(by definition) have enough growth and
whilst at times you will (if you bother
to check) run big public deficits, you
are also likely to find yourself running
occasional public surpluses.
Beyond that you want to encourage work
which utilises renewables &/or recycling
and discourage plundering natural
resources - including foreign resources,
the tax system can help with that, make
the polluters & plunderers subsidise the
recyclers, as well as other , currently
seen as a sin, government interference
in markets.
Sounds nice but...what about about
automation destroying lots of the
lovely jobs you're talking about? It
seems to me that a crucial question
for our times is whether in the face
of the latest wave of automation, AI
and machine learning, the lump of
labour fallacy will still hold true.
If it doesn't, I forecast a lot of
violence and death in addition to the
violence and death that climate
change and antibiotic resistance are
already causing and which I
respectfully suggest is going to grow
exponentially.
Unemployment isn't measured by what
the government says it is. It's
measured by phoning people up and
asking them if they think they're in
work. In order to get the figures
down, you'd have to get a bunch of
unemployed people to say they were in
work in order for them to help out a
government they presumably don't
think much of.
I think my interview with Iran's former
president, Banisadr who lives in exile,
can enrich the argument. Especially the
part, which talks about the structural
problems with capitalism and the way to
overcome it:
We also need a society which meets our
psychological needs as well as our
material and environmental needs on a
sustainable basis. Thankfully the fairly
new field of positive psychology is now
showing us how to do this and there have
recently been prestigious conferences in
London and Dubai involving the OECD and
government personnel around the world
centred on adapting policies to meet
these needs. This is the missing
ingredient that can help us create a
better world. But it will require a mass
movement focussing on these three
elements to galvanise opinion formers
and the political community into taking
the necessary action.
Positive psychology, while admirable
in it's goals, has suffered from a
lack of empirical data to support
it's theories. For ages it was
focused on theories and half assed
science (admittedly it's been a while
since I visited it). They have had
the positive influence in that people
are researching topics in parallel
with positive psychology. Though many
researchers still try to distance
themselves from that field due to the
lack of empiricism* that was rife.
It has potential though, I'll say
that, and it's aims are admirable.
*I don't know if that's still the
case!! It just used to be one of it's
many criticisms. I heard a research
proposal recently investigating
resilience using fMRI, and many of
the proposal's themes resonated with
positive psychology. When I brought
that up, there were a few raised
eyebrows and a sigh of relief when I
pointed out that it was simply a
comment on the parallelism...
It basically drifts far too close to
pseudo-psychology to be taken
serious. If it could rain that in and
pull itself towards a more empirical
approach then people within the
scientific community would be more
willing to engage. Otherwise you
might as well get tips on how to fold
your arms (and what that conveys)
from Cosmopolitan, or engage in
'power stance' to feel more
'confident'... both perfect examples
of pseudo-psychology.
Again, these
are general (and fair) criticisms of
positive psychology. It does have
aspects I like, for example they try
to develop techniques for improving
mental health (or well-being as they
would maybe refer to it as) that
don't require a physician or a
psychologist. Ones that you can do on
your phone and what have you. Which
would be great if there was
sufficient evidence that their
techniques work.
I'm bemused by Mr Monbiots arguments. He
seems to be railing against the
monitizing of society, and yet moans
about the lack of money for carers? This
caring argument seems to include
housework, a lot of which is done by
women, though why or who would pay for
this type of caring is always
unexplained. I'd have thought that just
being human demands a certain level
domestic care from everyone ? Then
there's the community energy idea. It
sounds lovely and cosey, if a bit
Royston Vasey, but doesn't he wonder why
the old local authority power generators
stopped working, and a National Grid was
developed? What's called the After
Diversity Maximum Demand, on an
electrical system might give him a clue
as to why big generators and a
transmission system beats lots of little
generators hands down.
It's the irony of the modern left. On
the one hand, bemoaning the rich for
always wanting more money and on the
other, demanding more money....
Reply
Share
The example you give, the National
Grid, was a socialist creation,
stolen from the UK people by the
vile, despicable and fortunately very
dead Margaret Thatcher, the worst
thing to have happened to Britain
since Adolf Hitler.
Reply
Share
The aim of economic activity, she
argues, should be "meeting the needs
of all within the means of the
planet".
is a paraphrase of the most likely
criminal
and bankster gofer Maurice
Strong's "definition" of sustainability.
"Development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet
their own needs."
as filtered through the openly
Communist UN Bruntland Commission.
It is a Technocratic, UN-
corporatist- global governance-based
ideology that -- to nobody's surprise --
Monbiot thinks is newly-baked and right
out of the oven.
And the radical new doughnut way of
looking at global development is
straight out of UN Agenda 21/30.
The undercooked intellectual pudding
Monbiot is slopping about in and
describing as the finest chocolate
mousse since sliced bread, is just an
old and rejected 1930's version of
Technocracy, which was revised in the
1970s, and then, again in the 1990s, and
which, at its heart, is nothing but the
call for the institution of a fascistic
world government that will, we are
assured, give us more social justice
than we could ever need.
If the author of the reviewed book
hasn't made these attributions, and is
passing this global governance schematic
and MO off as her own, then she's
plagiarizing.
"... Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on Syria , and that there were plans to fake chemical attacks there. ..."
"... "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria, including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons]," ..."
"... In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack, and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with Donald Trump. ..."
Vladimir Putin
has deepened his support of the Syrian regime, claiming its opponents planned false-flag chemical
weapon attacks to justify further US missile strikes.
The Russian president's predictions on Tuesday of an escalation in the Syrian war involving more
use of chemical weapons came as US officials provided further details of what they insist was a sarin
attack by Bashar al-Assad's forces against civilians on 4 April, and accused Moscow of a cover-up
and possible complicity.
The hardening of the Kremlin's position, and its denial of Assad's responsibility, accelerated
a tailspin in US-Russian relations, just as the US secretary of state,
Rex Tillerson , arrived
in Moscow for direct talks.
Tillerson had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified message from the G7, which condemned
the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However,
G7 foreign ministers were divided
over possible next steps and refused to back a British call for fresh sanctions.
Putin said western and Turkish accusations that Syria's government dropped the nerve agent that
killed dozens of civilians in Idlib earlier this month were comparable to the now-discredited claim
that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"It reminds me of the events in 2003 when US envoys to the security council were demonstrating
what they said were chemical weapons found in Iraq," the president told reporters on Tuesday. "We
have seen it all already."
Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on
Syria , and that there were
plans to fake chemical attacks there.
He insisted that Assad was not behind the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, saying Moscow
had information "from different sources" that it was carried out by rebel groups intent on dragging
the US into the conflict.
"We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria,
including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance
and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons],"
he said, without offering any proof for the assertion. Putin predicted such fake attacks would
be used to justify further US missile strikes on the regime, like the attack on Shayrat air force
base on Friday.
Senior White House officials said that Syrian military officers involved in the regime's chemical
weapons programme were at the Shayrat base ahead of and on the day of the Khan Sheikhun attack, which
they claimed was carried out by a Syrian air force Su-22 warplane, dropping at least one munition
containing sarin nerve agent.
One official said that there was "no consensus based on the information we have" of direct Russian
complicity, but pointed out that the Russian and Syrian military had a long history of close cooperation
and that Russian troops were at Shayrat base at the time of the attack.
In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack,
and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with
Donald Trump.
"... Her casting of herself and other highly intelligent people as the beacon of humanity and all others as 'untermensch' has the whiff of Nazism but on intellectual rather than racial grounds. ..."
"... Pound shop philosopher. These 'alphas' could forge ahead and change society in less cash focused ways, they just like the excuse to be 1%ers. ..."
"... Successful psychopaths depend on everyone else following the rules which they are able to circumvent as they have no conscience. When everyone behaves as the psychopath then there is indeed " no such thing as society". ..."
"... A lone wolf is normally a dangerous crank - yet more confirmation ..."
"... However, she was a bad writer who just made selfish rich folks think they were better than the rest of us; that's why her 'works' are regarded by thinking people as toxic waste..... ..."
"... Rand's "ideal man" sounds a bit like the genius concept of the 19th century (Nietzsche et al.) transferred from the realm of art to the field of money making. ..."
"... I grew up in the Soviet Union, in much more vegetarian times, than 1920s, but still we all lived in poverty, and the lack of basic goods and services was absolutely humiliating. Having that experience it is only natural that I fully share contempt for the state as a mechanism for ensuring equality and economic prosperity. ..."
"... LMAO!!! Ayn Rand was a terrible author with no ideas other than "be selfish"; she wrote economics for kindergartners. She was also a hypocrite because she accepted Social Security payments in her old age. The only thing I like about Ayn Rand is that she was an atheist. ..."
"... The fact she lived out her later life reliant on state benefits shows that apart from anything else she was a massive hypocrite. ..."
Everyone read The Fountainhead at architecture school. As did the frat boy who gets the girl pregnant
in Dirty Dancing - brandishing a battered copy in the nice dad's face at the end
A certain film in the 1980s summed up Ayn Rand's philosophy (both her approach to economics and
to ethics) quite well, via the mouth of a character apparently named after a lizard: "Greed is
good". And we all know that the 80s did not result in huge national debts; it did not result in
markets crashing after it was realised market activity could not be sustained solely upon optimism;
it did not result in deregulation that led to Savings and Loans scandals and lost retirement investments;
it did not result in robber barons generating wealth out of nothing but threats illegally backed
by lenders and insider-trading, mass lay-offs, and eventual global market crashes; and it did
not result in the rich hypocritically becoming major welfare recipients via bail-outs, etc.
So,
bravo leaders of this Brave New World, for bringing her philosophy to the forefront, and getting
elected on platforms based upon the notion that you can never underestimate the stupidity (or
racism and bigotry and misogyny) of the general population. And excuse me while I pop American
Psycho into the VHS player.
C'mon, what's not to love on John Galt's 60-page (or was it 80?!?!) orgasmic radio broadcast?
A true fan of small government might also be a fan of shorter monologues.
I loved reading her madness; there's a purity of commitment that's as breathtaking as it is
at times absurd. Archetypes from fantasyland.
It's a great type of fiction; anyone loony enough to think this can translate into the real
world should have their head examined. Yes, unicorns are powered by perpetual motion machines
(and all the best people are gaunt, tight-lipped, ruggedly handsome and have the initials H.R.)
Rand - intelligent outsider embittered by the confiscation of her family's business and shabby
treatment of Jews during the Soviet revolution prompts her wholesale rejection of collectivism.
Her casting of herself and other highly intelligent people as the beacon of humanity and all others
as 'untermensch' has the whiff of Nazism but on intellectual rather than racial grounds.
She should have read the 'parable of the long spoons'.
With 1600 comments here--most of them negative and most of them completely missing the point of
philosophy--it really brings up the question: Why is Ayn Rand still so popular?
The obvious answer is her ideas speak to the true nature of humanity. They resonate within
the individual regardless of how much politically correct garbage they have been exposed to through
government schools and a Western media that everyone agrees is controlled with few exceptions
by the Left.
Ayn Rand has been bashed and defamed at every turn, but here she still is garnering headline
after headline. I'll quote Ghandi to help you understand why: "First they laugh at you. Then they
fight you. Then you win."
And, by the way, philosophy starts with metaphysics and epistemology, not ethics and politics.
The latter are results of the former. I'm hopefully that with innovations like Elon Musk's Neuranet
that people will be getting smarter and more able to understand this.
Successful psychopaths depend on everyone else following the rules which they are able to circumvent
as they have no conscience. When everyone behaves as the psychopath then there is indeed " no
such thing as society".
Its noticeable that none of Rand's modern followers are good looking, despite that being a pre-requisite
for her heroes. Obviously they probably think they are because of power. I suppose the French
Revolution was a form of collective selfishness by the downtrodden. A warning in history maybe.
The article could have summed up Rand and her followers as stating what she was : a psychopath
who attracts other psychopaths like a lightening rod.
The article also completely avoids the fact Rand herself hypocritically relied on the State for
survival as she got old and was suffering from lung cancer due to her voracious smoking habit.
And Silicone Valley and all the rest of her creepy followers are equally hypocritical as the article
ignores that all these corporations quite happily accept State support in all the infrastructure
provided by taxpayers.
Rand's selfish beliefs and those of her worshipers could never work because they are predicated
on the great heroes of Objectivism operating in a vacuum yet they don't . They rely on millions
of taxpayers doing the right thing and funding the things government brings us so we can live
much easier.
As an example the ghastly Apple corp would collapse if their overpriced products (built by slave
labour) could not be afforded by the millions of people who buy them as they can only do so because
decades of union activism has allowed them to reach a certain wage level.
Her philosophy should be summed up as what it is : plain old fashioned selfishness practiced
by a bunch of scroungers who all pretend they made it on their own which is an impossibility.
Rand's work is popular with those of limited intelligence and vision, and zero EQ. That's why
he claims to be a disciple.
I very much doubt that Trump has read any book by Ayn Rand, or any other writer for that matter.
He hasn't the patience or concentration to get through that much sludge. He didn't even 'write'
his own pile of garbage, a ghost writer did and had publicly regretted it ever since.
The implication was always that her father's talents alone enabled her family to rise over others,
while in reality the brutal inequity of tsarist Russia allowed them to stand on the prone corpses
of the less fortunate.
Extreme capitalism merely concentrates the money and power into the hands of a few, the few whose
overriding motivations are power and money, it is then they , as the Tsars before them, who reside
over a font a patronage favoring those who massage their egos, this is not a meritocracy and
requires the democratic state to intervene and level the playing field.
An intellectual pygmy who couldn't hold a candle to Henry George:
All over the world, we hear complaints of industrial depression: labor condemned to involuntary
idleness; capital going to waste; fear and hardship haunting workers. All this dull, deadening
pain, this keen, maddening anguish, is summed up in the familiar phrase "hard times."
This situation can hardly be accounted for by local causes. It is common to communities
with widely differing circumstances, political institutions, financial systems, population
densities, and social organization. There is economic distress under tyrannies, but also where
power is in the hands of the people. Distress where protective tariffs hamper trade, but also
where trade is nearly free. Distress in countries with paper money, and in countries with gold
and silver currencies.
Beneath all this, we can infer a common cause. It is either what we call material progress,
or something closely connected with it.
If you read what Nathaniel Brandon and his wife have to say, a portrait emerges of a person who
was not very happy, especially later in life. The joy of talking with a young child, humor, none
of that sort of thing in her writings or her life. Not much fun, her philosophy.
If you read what Nathaniel Brandon and his wife have to say, a portrait emerges of a person who
was not very happy, especially later in life. The joy of talking with a young child, humor, none
of that sort of thing in her writings or her life. Not much fun, her philosophy.
Probably everyone should read Ayn Rand at some stage, especially as she seems to impress our age's
rich and powerful. Either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged would do. But you don't
have to finish them. Just a few dozen pages will convince you how awful a writer she was, and
few more dozen will convince you she has just a few ideas that she repeats over and over. The
result is suffocatingly dull, shallow and ultimately trivial. That she is revered at all says
way too much about those who revere her to afford the rest of us any comfort.
Greenspan, appointed as the US's central banker by Ronald Reagan in 1987, firmly believed that
market forces, unimpeded, were the best mechanism for the management and distribution of a society's
resources. That view – which Greenspan would rethink after the crash of 2008-9 – rested on the
assumption that economic actors behave rationally, always acting in their own self-interest.
The problem wasn't the crash of 2007/08 (not 08/09), the problem was that all of the little
career politicians and government bureaucrats ran screaming from the simple, straightforward logic
of their avowed philosophy. When the chips were down, the frat boys and the New Labour converts
shat their pants and threw free market ideology out of the first open window.
The crash should have been allowed to proceed apace. The banks should have gone to the wall
en masse and the financial system should have been liquidated and cleansed.
The Rand Boys had their chance and they already blew it. In the end, it turned out they had
no balls for the ultimate market discipline.
That's because the "ultimate market discipline" would have involved making millions of people
destitute. Those people have a vote, and they're not all Randians, so they wouldn't understand
that their plight is simply the system correcting itself.
Awful woman with aweful values. My father had her book Atlas Shrugged. I took a peek when young
and was appalled. Not sure what he thought of it or her.
Ayn Rand wanted people to behave like (American) corporations - she left out the 'small' matter
of us being humans. It is typical 'binary' or 'black and white' thinking and devoid of all the
shades of grey (between the polar extremes of black and white) where most of humanity lives. Extreme,
un-nuanced ideology never works, as evidenced by the 20th century experiments in fascism and communism.
The most successful societies by most metrics are the Nordics, which use a mix of capitalism and
socialism - they have successful economies, good health outcomes, are well educated, have low
crime rates, higher sex/gender/social equality outcomes, low corruption, score well in economic
freedoms, score well in happiness indices and have good environmental protections.
Especially Norway. But there aren't just political-system factors at play in their superiority
as a society, but others which are taboo to mention in PC-gagged sheets such as The Guardian.
(But you're a smart lad. I'm sure you'll figure them out,)
Oh Come on, don't leave us lesser mortals in suspense. I know quite a lot of Norwegians as I have
connections there. Is it because you think they have no immigration?
"which are taboo to mention in PC-gagged sheets such as The Guardian. "
Oh go on, claiming to be 'PC-gagged' in The Guardian is just a projection/fantasy. Get it out
there and be brave enough to have your opinions challenged - that's the thing about free speech
that many 'tough' snowflakes don't like.
Now that we've finally got the liberating Brexit we've craved for so long and a Tory government
for at least the next 10 years (conservative estimate), we can hope they will finally implement
more Randian policies and eliminate the welfare state. Trump is doing his bit in the U.S. The
important thing is for us to make the government a lot SMALLER, not bigger. You have millions
of people in the UK who don't even want to work because they (and even their parents before them)
have always relied on the welfare state to give them free money. Look up the phenomenon of "learned
helplessness". Ayn Rand was a genius!
"Ayn Rand was a genius!" - perhaps amongst idiots! Ayn Rand wanted people to behave like corporations,
the only problem is that we are complex humans. Individualism and competitiveness work well in
some circumstances, but not all; many benefits can be achieved through co-operation. To ignore
one side of this daily battle for most humans is an insult to our humanity, it is the greatest
difference between humans and the rest of the animal world. Just because there are loose ends
on each side of the 'bell curve' does not mean we should forget the greatest benefit for most
people.
As for 'learned helplessness', in the laissez faire (Ayn Rand utopia) period of the late 18th
and most of the 19th century there were many more helpless, learned and otherwise. The most productive
period of humanity has been during the period of the (very un-Randian) 'mixed economies' of the
20th century.
Now to Donald Trump, do you really think he and his cabinet of billionaires/Golman Sachs alumni
really care about the average, hard working middle-American? They are not interested in social
mobility/opportunity, they are only interested in consolidating their own position. Trump is not
draining the swamp, he is contaminating it further.
As to Trump and Brexit nationalism, who is going to do the work Mexicans and Poles (amongst
others)?
The world is not binary, it is complex and messy - simple solutions will not solve complex
problems...... so put a thinking cap on and get ready for getting dirty hands in this complex,
messy world rather than sitting in a padded cell.
Its strange that the papers cannot find these hordes of people where whole families have never
worked no matter how hard they try. Governments have a duty to provide work if the private sector
don't come up to the mark.
Even setting aside Rand's sociopathic ideals, how puzzling that so many people claim they enjoy
reading The Fountainhead.
Is this a version of the Emperor's New Clothes, where no one wants to admit that her book Is
frankly boring, with two-dimensional characters and stilted dialogue?
I'm guessing they did read it and that's their point. To be fair though, the quality of writing
in Game of Thrones is pretty average, but it hasn't stopped it from being very popular (and hasn't
stopped me from hoovering up each one).
And did you read it, Edbarbar? Did you force yourself to read page after puerile page of Rand's
turgid prose as required by your prof? Somehow I think not!
No. A country run by oligarchs and warlords. It could be very prosperous if it had oil for example
(many examples come to mind). Would that be called third world?
3rd World States are typified by bloated public sectors, staffed by parasites who supplement their
incomes with bribes extorted from the long-suffering citizenry. I believe such extortion is called
'dash' in Nigeria.
That there is a surge in support or even interest for the kinds of social theories that Rand puts
forward in her books. There isn't. Outside of the Guardian's pages, Rand is a non-topic.
I read the Fountainhead a few years ago, I only finished it because that's what I always do. I
thought it tedious drivel and consequently won't go anywhere near Atlas Shrugged.
I wonder about impressionable young students being given Ayn Rand's novel. I was allowed to read
1984 by George Orwell at school, but I was never examined on it. Hopefully the students will debate
at great length the ideas expressed, but given the lessons we give them (you can be anything you
want to/it's up to you) I fear they are all Rand's disciples already.
Does Public record show that Ayn Rand was on the 'Dole' as Ayn O'Connor ?
In terms of 'individualism' this is an important consideration of 'Mens Rea' , i.e. her level
of intent to conceal & potential arguments for hypocrisy & double standards within her own thought
processes, relating also to her ideology.
It's clear to me that, just as there is left-wing populism and right-wing populism, there are
left and right versions of individualism and collectivism.
I'm a left-wing individualist. Right-wing individualism favors entities like corporations (collectives)
and enshrines them as individuals.
See, I have a different view. Imagine you own a lot of the stuff that produces goods.
Now, think about people who work and want to save their money, pay off their debt, etc. Now,
imagine a system in which a government comes in and taxes those people, and takes their money
and gives it to people who do not produce.
Who benefits? The people making the stuff.
Taxation is forced spending. It's good for business. Who loves taxation? The left. Not the
right. The right wants you to be able to make free exchanges, not at a point of a gun.
Growing up in the UK I had never heard of Rand or seen her books in shops. I was living in the
US in the mid-1980s and found lots of copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in my local
second hand bookstore. I read the Fountainhead and its main message seemed to be that smart people
liked modern art. Atlas Shrugged seemed slightly bonkers.
Rand seemed to be trying to convince her readers that they were special and part of an elite.
In your mid-twenties it is slightly intoxicating. Eventually, you grow out of it. The Working
class are depicted as greedy morons who contribute nothing to society. I struggle to understand
how anyone who claims to be a Christian, like Paul Ryan, can also like Rand. She was an atheist
and she did not care about the poor or needy. Atlas Shrugged tells us it is OK to be selfish.
I am not sure it has much to do with market economics. It does help explain why the rich have
abandoned the bottom half of society. Rand told them that greed is good.
The main message of the Fountainhead was the absolute evil of Edward Toohey. I can't recall it
exactly, but it was something like "When all the oxen are going in the same direction, it is easier
to put the yoke on them."
Secondary messages? Real genius is hard to come buy, and is not appreciated. The system will
grind you down.
You folks who love your government so much, you leftists. . .Consider that George Bush killed
between 100,000 and 1,000,000 million Iraqis, made possible by the powerful state you all worship
to. And Obama is not much better, dropping 80,000 bombs last year on the ME, in a remote control
war.
The super-capitalist global corporations have long since captured the American state. It is incapable
of advancing the public interest, and has reached the endgame of Ayn Rand's world.
Man, when the libs start wailing and crying about an author you know you need to read the book.
I do believe that the libs would love an old fashioned book burning.
'Hate' would only come from a belief that there was some substance in her writings that was disagreeable
to them. This is very different from the actuality of anti-'Rand'ers believing her writings are
vacuous in material.
Fans of coherent thought and philosophy hate her too. I'm not adverse to judging right wing philosophies,
but they have to actually BE a coherent system of thought first. Randianism is just axioms and
catchphrases, with some average fiction.
Thats a very poor attempt at diverting the belief that Executive compensations are exceedingly
and unsubstantially higher (not higher per se) than Workers wages.
OT: Isn't it interesting that Workers are paid and Executives are compensated. Its as though the
later have better things to do.
So? Stop being a worker and become an executive. That's called freedom. Oh, wait, you class-obsessive
leftist want everyone to remain suppressed at their level, right? In order to better control them
as the elitist, arrogant, Orwellian Ingsoc freaks that you are.
Thats a very poor attempt at diverting the belief that Executive compensations are exceedingly
and unsubstantially higher (not higher per se) than Workers wages.
OT: Isn't it interesting that Workers are paid and Executives are compensated. Its as though the
later have better things to do.
So? Stop being a worker and become an executive. That's called freedom. Oh, wait, you class-obsessive
leftist want everyone to remain suppressed at their level, right? In order to better control them
as the elitist, arrogant, Orwellian Ingsoc freaks that you are.
Rand was a master at superficially straightforward logic - hence perhaps her attraction to young
males. Demolishing her arguments properly (rarely done in this comments section I see which mainly
consists of 'f** her and her acolytes' etc.) involves a bit of subtle sophistication and some
wisdom obtained from living in the real world. That's why it's way too much for these single-minded
Silicon Valley types, or the corporate neanderthals surrouding Trump and the GOP. The problem
with Rand is that her philosophy is a hard task-master: it's impossible to live without being
a hypocrite (and thus completely unworthy in her book). But that's the easy way to trip up her
acolytes - none of them actually live the way she recommends.
Another good comment, indeed, a seriously flawed philosphy, with a body of evidence to argue against
her simplistic notions of self..
Thus, it would be good to have Public Record attached to her 'Dole' & Welfare payments made
in the name of Ayn O'Connor, i believe? 'Men's Rea' is important to establish if we wish to reflect
in a qualitative judgement of her words & actions , especially if we are going to use her works
in any shape & form as part of a school curriculum .. would you not agree?
N.B. the apostrophe by Mens Rea, above , is very deliberate.. I think you are wise enough to
know where i am going with that wee jest:)
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
It is true that among the many ways we can divide the world, the Doers and the Watchers is one
of them. If you think the Doers have more than they should, then become one of them. Victimology
appears to have become a religion of late.
So, Ayn Rand is a bit of a cult then ? I believe they got one letter wrong on that. Tried to read
"Atlas Shrugged" a few years back, someone left a very battered copy at work, I would have liked
to have been able to pull apart it's central themes when confronted by one of her adherents down
the pub but - fuuuck, what a tedious, fetid, turd brick of a book. Died sucking on the government
tit too. Hypocritical old bag should have crawled out into the snow to die. Rugged individualism
my arse. Typical of the breed. The world would be a much better place if we drowned them all at
birth. All her little fuckmonkeys do their little "look at me -- look at me !" dance at the altar
of her twisted ideas - but when it all turns to shit who do they squeal at to bail the banks out
? The "big government" they profess to despise. I really can't express in words my contempt for
these pitiful excuses for human beings.
Sleep well in the (Online or in person I always make the same offer to the "dog eat dog" pretend
devotees out there - "me & you dropped naked into a pit with a blunt steak knife each, winner
gets all the losers assets" No takers as of yet) fire.
As I understood it at the time, the 'Rand'ers didn't want the Gov. bailout. Rather, they felt
it was best to have a complete collapse of the banking system.
Just one note: Ayn Rand was the woman who was always opposed to social security and to treatment
for everyone. Persons who cannot work or did not accumulate money have to die to not make the
successful pay.
Rand was dependent on social security payments the last years of her life - she would not have
been able to survive without.
Good point! And surely none of her disciples picked up the bill in accordance with their common
belief.
Ayn Rand seems to have been a person embittered by what she must have felt was insufficient recognition
of her talents. Only a person deeply hurt by rejection could have written such books.
"What of the current moment, shaping up to be the fourth age of Rand?"
Ayn Rand, a Soviet expatriate, died in 1982 - seven years before the Wall came down. She was
only 12 during the October revolution that saw her hometown's name changed to 'Leningrad'. She
was a critic of the Vietnam War even while a harsher critic of socialism and communism and the
Soviet Union. It would interesting to hear her take on Russia today. Would she have changed her
attitude towards it, as old conservatives like Pat Buchanan have, or would she be with the liberals,
ranting about Russia.
For those who don't know, Ayn Rand vehemently opposed the military draft: "The most immoral
contradiction-in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups-is that of the so-called "conservatives,"
who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate
the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who
have no right to life, have the right to a bank account?" - Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/draft.html
Forgive me if someone has already posted this quote. I'm not sure who wrote it but it has been
referenced by Paul Krugman:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings
and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its
unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
I guess, given that the Guardian is a Left wing publication, that any article posted about Ayn
Rand would inspire a Leftist hatefest, but the over the top bed wetting and obvious jealousy displayed
in the comments by bitter, angry leftists ...that anyone like Rand could ever attain the kind
of influence that they on the Left would gladly give a testicle to equal ...has been truly amusing!
Kind of like the amusement we on the American Right experience ever day as we observe the unhinged,
hysterical, whining , crying and diaper wetting by the American Left as Trump steadily dismantles
the fragile edifice erected by Obama!
You obviously don't live in the states or you would know that "dwarf" is politically incorrect
and insulting term that polite individuals no longer utilize.
Of course the evangelical Christian voters might well ask themselves how they could hold their
nose and vote for a narcissist who adheres to this worldview.
They probably won't though, because they are hypocrites.
Ayn Rand was taking Dexedrine to keep off the weight like so many others in her era...and her
works read like it. I despise tweekers...and atheist panderers...nuts to that witch.
Ayn Rand was a sociopath or psychopath, whichever you prefer. In the 1920's, she idolized a serial
killer. Her books are fantasies for the selfish. she props them up with infantile tales of being
super capitalists with disdain and elitist contempt for all but themselves. For those without
any moral justification for their avaricious goals, she offered a superficial philosophy as a
plausible defense for greed and pathology. Her books told of women being raped by the protagonist
god hero and enjoying it. Certainly, a perverted view. Even more so was her personal life where
she demanded her husband and the wife of a young male psychotherapist indulge her to have the
young man for a boy toy. A real model she was for the religious right.
I guess that the right-wing, much like they do with Christian teachings, take from Rand only what
suit their purposes. For instance, Rand writes:
"A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does
not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of
a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange - an exchange which benefits both parties
by their own independent judgment ."
That's the antithesis of the practices of Trump and much of the right-wing.
Weird, Rand wrote only about those things that all Americans at one time understood as being self
evident. Yet those same things now put our libs into a heinous frenzy of name calling, threats,
and baseless lies. How far we have come. Talk about a divided house.
The only people Rand impresses are insecure males who are trying to convince themselves that they're
deep thinkers. That covers much of the powers driving Republican party and Silicon Valley, mainly
those guys with too much unearned money on their hands. Also, she's very popular among high school
boys. Pretty much the same mindset, eh?
Anyone who ever actually read Ayn Rand and is information off to actually working brain cells,
must have noticed the publications of Ayn Rand are nothing but horribly juvenile pulp fiction.
Ayn Rand was Alan Greenspan's favourite ideologe, and people are surprised this idiot ran the
economy of the USA into the ground when he was head of the FED.
On purpose I might add, because that was what I Ayn Rand advocated.
SPARKS FROM WYATT'S TORCH --- LIBERALISM RECLAIMED!
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the
same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism --- by vote. It is merely
the difference between murder, and suicide."
--- Ayn Rand
What the USA needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary!
And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!
But the American Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."
Strip them naked of their "liberal" camouflage and behold their ugliness.
They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government"
here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem.
Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism [National Socialism], socialism,
"democratic" socialism, "social democracy," fascism, communism, progressivism, and welfare statism
---- these last two are mixtures of fascism and socialism.
Note that these statists are all joined-at-the-hip and on-the-same-page in their common contempt,
enmity, and disdain for human rights.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it
is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its
own jurisdiction.
What "human rights?"
I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life,
liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
A slave is owned by someone other than himself --- but a free man owns himself.
The first article of private property is "the self" --- and all other rights are derivatives
of and flow from these cardinal rights.
These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and
they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words.
Observe the connection between "liberty" and "liberalism." The words "liberal" and "liberalism"
were hijacked by the Democrats, socialists, progressives, and fascists, long ago ---- and it was
the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.
"Liberalism" requires the defense and promotion of "individual liberty" --- and today's fake
"liberals" are busily and maliciously destroying it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners
---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity!
Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and
overthrow and trounce the Democrats --- now and forever! Destroy them!
=====================================
START A PRAIRIE FIRE!
START A TEA PARTY TSUNAMI!
START A TAXPAYER REBELLION AGAINST THE TAX-EATERS!
SHARE THESE SENTIMENTS WITH YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND NEIGHBORS, TODAY! $
AND CHECK OUT AYN RAND'S "CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL." ~:<)
Really deep in your own stew eh? There's so many erroneous conflations and outright distortions
in your post that all I'll do is tag it caveat lector .
Woo hoo! Off with the pixies ain't he? I'm still waiting for someone to come up with evidence
against Ms Rand's lengthy flirtation with govt sponsored social security and medicine. I'll bet
there is an industry based on refuting this so insecure is the US Right on this fact. So sure
was Ms Rand of her own principles that they were abandoned with plenty in the bank!
Why is private property, particularly being able to amass more private property than anyone could
possibly need at the expense of others, a "right"? We now have the ridiculous, and unsustainable,
situation where the 8 richest people in the world are in possession of more material wealth than
the bottom 50% (about 3.75 billion people) - and the top 1% have more than the bottom 95%.
How is such a right to property "unaliable" [sic] and "universally-valid"?
Let's see....Let's see......Rand advocated personal responsibility, the virtue of hard work, the
power of creativity, importance of education and the evil of an all powerful government. Having
lived through the Russian revolution she was well versed in the crushing boot of collectivism.
And the Rand detractors advocate what? Perhaps that is why we are so rudderless today, with
half of the citizens on some kind of welfare.
As usual, Ayn Rand's detractors cannot discuss her without misquoting her or employing the simple
expedient of lying about her. That she has found some admirers in Silicon Valley is annoying to
those who love to use the guns of government to suck the blood and treasure of Silicon Valley
into their own pockets --- all the while posturing as the occupants of the moral high ground.
She is popular among many Trumpsters for reasons good and plenty, although she was an enemy of
protectionism, border taxes, duties, tariffs, and import quotas, and no particular friend of eminent
domain for any purpose. Were her accusers to confront her on the debate stage tomorrow morning,
doubtless she could drive them into the sea in the first 30 seconds of their encounters with her.
~:<)
Steve Jobs - poster boy for exploitation of others & ZERO personal vision/creativity
Paul Ryan - beneficiary of SSD benefits but envisions a 'tough love' solution for the poor
Rand Paul - chaos theory practioner....roads, police, taxes...who needs those things
Alan Greenspan - serving up the great recession courtesy of unregulated lending
Donald Trump - culmination of collective selfishness & ignorance on part of voters and a practitioner
of strategic bankruptcy...yes a real self-made man using all daddy's money....what's left of it
that is.
She should be damned for her fawning followers alone. A collection of true deplorables...
I sense a bit of snide disdain by the author of this article when it comes to Ms Rand.
The disdain and jealousy of someone who know that when everything he has written has been forgotten,
the 50 year old books of Ayn Rand will STILL be selling in the book stores and on the Internet
and STILL be influencing the great minds and leaders in this world.
Her central premise is that each man should earn his own way. That resonates with most people.
As long as people aspire to make a difference in the world, her message will endure.
yes- as long as there are heartless greedy rich people in the world- looking for a fascistic ideology
to justify their bloated wealth and greedy tax avoiding ways- there will always be room for
the humorless and nasty Ayn Rand.
This is the lady who suggested all schools, hospitals and even roads be privatized. What a
disgrace! Hitler and Mussolini would have loved her.
Why no mention of the fact the, in the US, organisations and fraternal societies exist that perpetuate
the destructive tripe and crank macro economics that Rand's work has inspired?
Freedland presents the work of Rand as having a malignant influence insofar as it inspires
those who are already psychopaths, misfits, right wing ideologues or/and libertarian nuts.
The truth is that there are well funded networks and socialisation processes designed to integrate
Randian theology into the mainstream - and with some success.
ConDem financial and economic policy - the dogged pursuit by Osborne and Clegg of austerity
- had a Randian and Paul Ryanesque view of the world. Its cock sure arrogant certainty complete
with micro gesture disdain for the pain of others, can't be understood apart from the transatlantic
community of privileged neoliberal nuts it managed to tap into.
Freedland's article reads like a an apolitical account of Rand, presumably reflecting either
ignorance of her true impact or ambivalence about the Guardian's own neoliberal turn.
For a while I have thought there is no such thing as a right wing intellectual. Reading the article
i was worried I might have to rethink. But reading the comments I now feel reassured.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
If Rand does live again, it is from ignorance. Her doctrine died long before she did, as best
demonstrated in the first episode of 'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace'. Anyone attempting
to resurrect Rand must ignore facts (i.e the GFC), which doubtlessly establishes Trump's appreciation
of her.
This the post-truth era. Haven't you heard? Down this particular rabbit hole, the bank failures
were a result of pesky big government and all that troublesome red tape. You've really got to
do a better job staying on-message.
If the US government, aka Clinton, had not been the guarantor for all those dodgy loans to the
poor there would have been no collapse. The CEO of Countrywide Financial admitted at a Washington
hearing that one third of borrowers failed to make the first mortgage payment. He dressed like
a mobster and knew that the Feds were guaranteeing home loans to NINJNAs.
That is an example of big government.
Here is another from 2012. After Hurricane Sandy wiped out beachfront properties on the Jersey
Shore Obama rushed to see the devastation and with Christie in tow he announced the Feds would
guarantee mortgages for all homes rebuilt on the Jersey shore. With the impact of climate change
and rising sea level no bank would lend funds for rebuilding unless some wealthy mug would step
up with a guarantee; so up stepped Obama and guaranteed re-election for himself and Christie.
The heart of the Rand cult is exemplified in the ideal of the "man who would rather see his buildings
dynamited than compromise on the perfection of his designs."
Essentially, a man who would rather destroy than allow a perceived impurity to corrupt his
sense of his own perfection.
This follows on philosophically from Neitzche's 'Übermensch' which formed the underpinning
of Nazi ideology, and fundamentally divides people according to their perceived superiority/inferiority.
The irony is that there is nothing objective at all in divvying up humanity in such a way.
In fact, the process is entirely subjective and tends to afford values of superiority to those
who most closely resemble the ideal self of the person making the evaluation.
The problem for the Rayn libertarians, though, comes when the design of Howard Roark's perfect
tower meets the design of Donald Trump's perfect tower. Both cannot inhabit the exact same space;
both cannot be truly perfect if the shadow of one impacts the form of the other.
There is only one sun.
And there is only one earth.
If there were only one individual, there would be no problem.
You see, the idea of the commonwealth built by the labor of the persons who came before you, is
revealed as but a myth. The rules do not apply to the exceptional, they are above, leading us
to that great heaven in the sky that shall arrive after we die. Oh but have faith in the great
market.
National wealth, why it is for the masters to use to better the achievement of their dreams
to create the future that will enrich them and cater to us the masses in our desires for objective
comfort.
Alas, there are now so many of the rest of us, redundant to the needs of the masters and more
costly to keep then the new robots. Oh what shall the rational psychopaths in charge do?
Dude, I have an idea. Just work hard, try to provide for your family, create something....anything
that may help someone, educate yourself, have fun, treat others with respect, give credit where
it is due and QUIT being so bitter. You might just find a little bit of happiness.
I sense quite a bit of anger and bitterness and, dare I say it?
Fear...in your remarks.
Whatever can be said about Rand's beliefs and their "failure"....it pales in comparison to
the failures in reality to the sacred collectivist cows of the Left.
It doesn't matter how much you call yourself a liberal. If you are totally unwilling to in any
way ever criticise collectivism then you are NOT a liberal. You are a fraud.
There are really only two choices. We raise the individual above the state and let him be free
OR we raise the State above the individual and let the tyranny begin.
One can riot and rail against one of two things; We can hate the the guy that creates something,
gives us a job and moves us out of the cave OR we can hate the idea of big government that will
eventually and will always give us a reign of terror as Stalin, Mao, Caesar, Pol Pot, Castro,
etc gave us for the "common good".
Rand railed against monopolies that tried to quash competition....which is what many corporations
do, especially those that hook up with government. Educate yourself.
Why are people trying to debate objectivists/libertarians here? You might as well try to convince
a religious zealot that their god doesn't exist. I'm hoping that it's possible to get them to
accept that she was a shit writer. Let's start with that.
Don't worry. The one thing you can be 100% certain of with Ayn Rand is that 90% of those damning
her works have never been within a mile of any of her books.
She was a mom who gave a million testosterone tormented young males permission to think only of
themselves, contrary to what their real moms and girlfriends were telling them. What freedom they
felt reading this woman who understood their selfishness and, in fact, encouraged it and nurtured
it. Of course, there was rape, but she and her women expected that from young males with ambition.
Rand followed the men who followed the money, except in her own life. Her husband lived off of
her. She lived on her SS checks. I don't think even she believed her own "philosophy" by the time
she died, not really old, but bitter, bitter.
Rand was a keen observationist and perfectly characterized the natural man. In her genius portrayals
of characters, like Rearden and Roark, Rand wove the intricate details of what they were made
of like an exquisite tapestry. These were people driven by ideologies that they rarely questioned.
Their actions were dictated by their beliefs and their success was as predictable as their devotion
to them. The problem is objectivism "misses the mark" because there is a higher moral standard
and there are bigger questions than "what's in it for me?". Trying to run an economy on objectivist
principles, for instance, neglects the fact that some people participating in it are not driven
by the same motivations and may act based on factors like compassion, self sacrifice, social responsibility
and guilt.
The problem here though is that most opponents of Rand on the left don't believe in objective
or absolute morality either. They think everything is relative and therefore have no basis to
judge her ideology because without absolute standards no idea is better than another.
By that "logic", if I claim that there's no such thing as absolute hot or cold it means that I
think nothing can be hotter or colder in comparison to something else.
Unfortunately, it clearly hasn't managed to enslave your right to post ignorant commentary. That's
probably the biggest critique of progressivism I can think of.
Another strong and similar kind of influence on trump, randians and the neoliberals comes from
the New Thought movement in particular Rev. Norman Vincent Peale
Some think is fantastic others dangerous, the central idea of New Thought is ancient: believing
makes it so. That's the entire foundation of Neoliberal thought - a belief that the 'free
market' acts like an unseen god and is omniscient ie knows all. Humanity needs to surrender to
the power and all knowing wisdom of the Market.
There are few secular modes of thought more cretinizing than libertarianism.
I've known people over the years who fashion themselves libertarian who are perfectly smart
in all sorts of areas of life, but are dumb as bricks once they start enunciating their political
worldview.
What? Respecting other people's thoughts and morals by not trying to overarch both with your own
beliefs is stupid eh? Ayn Rand was a writer so selective in her choice of portrayal that what
she didn't portray made her evil, but only only in a moral non 'libertarian' way
The difference between the crap Rand spouts in her endless series of lectures, the stupid magazine
she founded, and her appalling novels is phenomenal.
"Objectivism" is like Scientology insofar as it masquerades as a functional school of thought
when in reality it is no more than the validation of sociopathy.
What a pack of lies, none of these people are Objectivists, especially Ryan who is much more like
Doctor Stadler than say an Eddie Willers. The rest of SiliCON valley is devoid of any morality
whatsoever where they sacrifice hard work and innovation to graft and pull...Shame on them, shame
on this author...
My father was a Philosophy Lecturer and I grew up reading all kinds of things from his extensive
library (that my Philistine mother sold after his death) and even as a kid I recall being fascinated/baffled
by the titles of the Rand works, especially "the Virtue of Selfishness" until I finally got around
to reading them at some point in my adolescence.
I simply do not believe that anyone who claims to be a fan (or a "Randroid" as one used to
call them) has actually read any of her simplistic drivel - her god-awful, tedious "novels" with
their absurdly exaggerated scenarios and mono-dimensional caricatures of characters and absurdly
improbable plots used to make me laugh and I remember trying desperately to finish page after
page without falling asleep.
After a long struggle to remain conscious long enough to finish The (hysterically awful) Fountainhead,
I had to read Atlas Shrugged because I could not believe that anyone could get published writing
such incredibly boring garbage - and it is garbage.
I re-read The Fountainhead a couple of years back because I thought I must've missed something,
but no - it was EVEN WORSE the second time:
Like some piece of puerile self-indulgent fiction written by an eleven year old psychopath with
neither powers of observation nor social skills let alone the most elementary understanding of
how human beings actually interact with other people.
It still amazes me that anything so incredibly BAD and so utterly boring could have been published.
Seriously- I doubt very much that Donald Trump has read anything by Ayn Rand - maybe he read
a review once, but considering how incredibly hard a slog it is for anyone with a functional brain
to actually wade through page after page after page of that trash I can't see anyone with his
notoriously short attention span and limited intellect doing it.
I honestly believe that the majority of those who claim to be acolytes of Rand are the kind
of people who like the idea of posing with a big, heavy serious-looking book and using it an accessory
to create an aura or intellectualism but who've never actually opened it:
"Oh this? It's just this book I've been reading ... it's greeeeat"
At the end Rand and her novels were all about freedom of thought, freedom to create and the freedom
for the earners to keep their earnings. After all what nut case would think that "government"
is better disposed to determine what to do with wealth than the person that created that wealth.
But ho-hum big government does what big government does, that is why we have a significant percentage
of citizens sitting on their arse collecting a government check and watching the telly. Yeah,
Ayn Rand really sucks, just like personal responsibility, personal freedom and all those great
things that the hard working give us (like this computer and web site we bang on) suck.
That's not at all what I found in her novels. Her protagonists are not partiers or glory hounds.
They are not pretentious. They work to earn their way and simply expect you to do the same.
I found The Fountainhead to be very inspirational. I've read it eight times. I've also read Atlas
Shrugged eight times. I found Ayn in my late 30s after working my way up from a min wage job to
a graduate degree and a six-figure salary.
My wife is not a big fan but she also followed that same career progression.
The lessons we learned just happened to align with our parenting style. We taught our kids to
hold themselves accountable, strive to be the best they can be, and use logic and reason to guide
their decisions, while using emotion to deepen their convictions.
Being an atheist since high school, I didn't find her novels to preach atheism. Her antagonists
mentioned in passing their lack of faith, but never tried to convince others or push it in any
way.
I think her most appealing factor is that she wanted and expected you to think for yourself and
make your own way. Many people agree with that premise, she just made her point with a sledgehammer,
instead of the flowery feel-good prose that so many people are afraid to come right out and state.
I had lived by her edicts, albeit unknowingly, for a few decades. After reading her book, it felt
like I found the owner's manual to my own life, with her clarifying words expanding my knowledge
of my views and values. I learned how to better critique and analyze my own mistakes, successes
and thought processes.
I have participated in, and donated to, numerous charities since my early 20s. I think followers
of her ideology are charitiable, they just view the best methods a bit differently. Is it better
to give a man a fish (from someone else's basket), or teach him to fish? I'm teaching my kids
to fish for themselves, and more importantly, to be happy with what they catch and to not be jealous
of their neighbor who may have a lot more. I'd like to see more people follow that credo.
I binge read these two 'classics' by A.R. when I was 15. I was at first entranced, at the end
felt somewhat sick, and then I grew up. That any adult espouses fealty to the ideas puts them
back in the sandbox where they are still grabbing and hoarding the toys and pushing over the other
children.
I read pretty much everything she wrote during my teens and it was - more than anything - a
horrible experience that I have never forgotten.
Even re-read the Fountainhead a few years back and it was even worse the second time: absurdly
improbable storylines, hysterical caricatures instead of characters and beyond ridiculous in every
aspect.
Quote: " . . . they will be studying one thinker who does not belong in the dusty archives of
ancient political theory but is achingly on trend . . ."
Please add that they will be studying the ONE novelist that might constitute the conservative
thinker's ONE and ONLY cultural reference . . . that sounds like a pretty dusty equation.
Ayn Rand is an adolescent phase, and most out grow it. But there are always a few arrested adolescents
around. The fact that they seem to have collected in the corridors of power frightens me no small
amount. But this article is a bit smug in suggesting that it's only in Washington. Someone in
the UK presumably approves your A-level curriculum.
"That it is having a moment now is no shock. Such an ideology will find a ready audience for as
long as there are human beings who feel the rush of greed and the lure of unchecked power, longing
to succumb to both without guilt. Which is to say: for ever."
This rather cynical characterization betrays a harsh truth: Rand's appeal is enduring because
she dared to express certain fundamental realities.
Yeah, I fear Sarah Palin et al, the type that is upheld as effective because we are "afraid" of
them. A completely facile comeback . . . aren't YOU afraid of The Communist Manifesto . . . aren't
America conservative types afraid of certain books to the point of banning them from public libraries?
Ayn Rand was a great novelist. But novelists should not be taken too literally. Any resemblance
to actual individuals is purely coincidental.
It is a little weird how libertarianism has attracted a bunch of right-wing kooks. They squawk
the squawk, but they sure as hell ain't no libertarian.
Libertarianism is the branch of political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the most
important principle of law. It seeks to maximize freedom. Not like the "Freedom Caucus" - which
is an obscene malapropism - but in the actual sense of enabling people to be as free as possible.
For grown-ups there is only one principle of law and governance really necessary: do what you
want, as long as you don't hurt someone. This is the libertarianism of Silicon Valley. Republicans
who pretend to be libertarians have a different version of liberty: they want the freedom to grab
as much as they can get, then hold on. It's an important distinction, and one we need to keep
in mind.
No, no, no .... Rand was not a great novelist ... no, shudder. Horror! She is a terrible novelist.
Her writing is appallingly bad. Her characters are flat and develop not one whit! The plots of
her books are contrived and demonstrably ridiculous. She does not explore controversial issues,
she preaches endlessly. Her conflicts are idiotic and she is simply adolescent in her logic. She
is quite pathetic, really. A very poor writer!
Her works are about as readable -- and as ideologically deep -- as "Mein Kampf". (...and before
you get the flamethrowers out read the damn things first.....)
before you get the flamethrowers out read the damn things first
I've read all her novels, and they are excellent as literature. As a manual of political action
they're pretty useless, but that's to be expected from works of fiction.
One novel that isn't mentioned in the article is her lesser-known "We the Living", set in the
early years of the USSR. It's worth reading. Not only because she witnessed the formation of the
Soviet Union first-hand, but also because she personifies the choices facing Communist Russia
in the form of three well-drawn characters: an old-school upper-class intellectual, an ideological
communist, and a young woman attracted to both of them.
And before condemning it, you might consider reading it first.
The novels cited are plausible on the surface but are actually riddled with illogicalities. Since
they are not just fictional tales, they also contain polemic which people take seiously, its important
for the stories characters and plot to be based somewhat in the real world. MK is also polemic
that sounds reasonable on the surface but like Rand's works fails on closer examination; like
Rynd's books its plausible enough to take in a lot of people because it says things that some
people want to hear.
Incidentally, as one of those SV types I've yet to hear of any of these works being taken seriously....obviously
I'm not moving in the right circles (again!).
Gerold, I have read everything the woman wrote - had to while completing a degree in English Literature
and after choosing the wrong course. Regardless, it is terrible writing by any literary standard.
A question for Randians: is government intervention to prevent financial meltdown to be condemned?
It seems to me that 2008 -and + has proved that a free and unrestricted market cannot be other
than self destructive, financially and socially. Rand might have despised conventional religions
and piety but she and her followers seem to be inculcated by a collective ethos of sin, of the
Last Judgement and damnation.
I think that you should reread my opining and rephrase your question? I would be grateful if you
would also rephrase "hypocrite much" in some form of the english language. If it is your name,
my apologies.
You do realize the 08 meltdown was caused by government meddling, right? Forcing banks to make
bad loan deals under the guise of some perverted idea of equality isn't a great long term plan.
Yunno what is? Try freedom.
There are few sectors of the economy that have received more assistance from the federal government
than the tech sector, mainly through massive military budgets and funds for research and development.
If the US had followed Randist nostrums the internet would never have been developed, as it
was the federal government that shouldered the costs of outlays required to get it up and going.
No profit-seeking entity would have ever taken on that burden.
The libertarian techies are about as individualistic and self-made as the western pioneers
who had the cavalry and all sorts of infrastructural supports financed by the government backing
them all along the way.
Well, the cavalry was a necessary function of government. Rand was not an anarchist: she believed
in a minimal state to enforce a common rule of law. From that we all benefit, but that doesn't
mean that government is the cure for everything. The fundamental point is this: force is justified
only defensively, and therefor, the legitimate functions of the state can only be defensive and
protective.
"that doesn't mean that government is the cure for everything..."
Straw-man alert.
"The fundamental point is this: force is justified only defensively, and therefor, the legitimate
functions of the state only be defensive and protective."
My observation is that "libertarians" are more than happy that the state applied "defensive
measures" to protect loot stolen by the self-made pioneers as they dispossessed and subjugated
the original inhabitants of the west.
When a libertarian tells you it's only natural and in no way oppressive for the state to protect
the property of the rich, ask them how the rich man came to possess his property--who gave it
to them, in other words--and almost invariably they'll either give you a blank stare or cry foul.
It's funny listening to libertarians proffer what they think sounds smart and incisive.
I take it that if cntrlfrk1986 had his way we'd have to pay a toll to some supposedly self-made
entrepreneur every time we want to walk down the fucking sidewalk.
Any Rand has been regularly popping up in the news media and other cultural references over the
past decade. It's no surprise to see this article.
.
The repeated Randian mentions have led me to check out her novels. I can't say I particularly
liked them. They certainly aren't the sort of books I would describe as inspirational. To use
a novel to further an academic viewpoint is an age old technique of persuasion. A more formal
technique would be to publish a thesis for peer review and leave it at that. She certainly had
a huge ego.
.
Much of her time was spent regaling against her early life experiences, which is fine. Our views
are often informed by personal childhood experience. The problem I have with Rand is her singular
lack of self-criticism or analysis. Free market capitalism and individualism will always be in
tension with "statism". Unbridled behaviour will always be subject to regulation and control.
.
To suggest that the world would not function if innovators, inventors, entrepreneurs and industrialists
are required to work within limits, as Rand does, is patently false. We do, after all, exist in
a regulated world and I see no hindrance of entrepreneurial spirit or restriction of technological
advancement. Quite the opposite.
.
She can use all the philosophical linguistic acrobatics she likes to prove her point but it doesn't
make her vision for our future any more likely or appealing.
.
The fact that so many of our right wing politicians have read her novels, and agree with Rand,
explains why these self same people are such ardent Brexiters. The EU, simply as a hypothesis,
is anathema to their world view.
.
The falsity of Randian politics is illustrated by their reluctance to explain how we achieve so
much more together than we do alone. Randians also fail to recognise that it was, to a great extent,
the industrial revolution throughout the 19th century that led to the totalitarianism of the 20th
as it set the ruling eilites against very underprivileged working classes. Yet Rand would have
us believe otherwise.
Infantile attention craving at its most destructive.
It doesn't even take intelligence to do what she did.
It takes wickedness.
Let's say I was a TV presenter who decided to become famous for treading new territory by decapitating
kittens on Prime Time...
I would certainly achieve my aim, wouldn't I?
But how highly evolved does my humanity need to be to do such a thing?
Zero. That's how highly.
The media love to give that woman the publicity she craved, creating a new wave of "popularity"
for her, simply because they can't find anything better to do.
But she remains old hat, just as Macchiavelli remains old hat.
Using the garbage written by Ann Rand as a basis for your economic policies will get you the same
results as if you use Harold Robbins as a guidebook for your love life.
The Fountainhead is a /terrible/ book and one look at Rand tells you why she had a thing for powerful
businessmen. I couldn't even get through it--and this was before she was a darling of idiotic,
selfish conservatives. Most overrated writer in history, perhaps.
I never tire of hearing leftwingers lecture everyone about a book they couldn't be bothered to
even finish. As if your own inability to understand it, somehow means no one else could. Precious.
I wonder how many right-wingers who would never tire in their condemnation of Marx have ever even
read one page of the Communist Manifesto, let alone Das Kapital.
We discovered Ayn Rand back in the late 1960s and "Atlas Shrugged" is our favorite. Although Ms.
Rand was an atheist and we are religious, I didn't find conflict in her writings. When I read
in today's news America has taken in some of the "largest Revenue Tax money" yet we see the road/bridges
and other structures in disrepair and many needs not met - you ask "what are we getting for our
money AND who is making off with most of it". The UK may enjoy Ayn Rand for exactly the same reasons
Americans have enjoyed and follow her. Quite a lady she was and still is.
Quite a lady ... not. She was an egotistical and hypocritical dolt. Her writing was appalling
bad and her philosophy of Objectivism, crude, poorly conceived and naive beyond reason.
Thank you for your comment. At least your intellectual confusion has the virtue of brevity. Atlas
Shrugged is over 600 pages long. Sorry I didn't mean to write long. I meant to write....zzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
Between the rampant lefties commenting who obviously have never read the book, and the author
of the article who hasn't bothered to even try...what, exactly, is the point? Stirring up Ayn
Rand hatred? It's always amazing to see so many people pretend to be experts about something they
know nothing about, yet hate completely. A-mazing.
The point is that many people, who despise left or right labels equally, HAVE read the book, and
learned enough about her to find hatred the most appropriate response.
Personally, I don't do hatred, but I do have healthy contempt in my fairly extensive palette of
responses when the occasion, common sense, or critical discrimination demands.
" UK students planning to take politics A-level... ... ...the curriculum includes a new addition:
the work of Ayn Rand.."
This crap is fiction (specifically fantasy) not politics and falls somewhere in the cannon
of politics between a Rupert Bear Annual and Mein Kampf. People read it because they are thick
and lazy. WTF next? Dale Carnegie?
So many people, couldn't distinguish a pernicious philosophy from a hole in the wall...
would happily endorse anything that came at them brandishing a new perversion...
Depressing and not at all amusing or intriguing.
This sort of thing makes evolution go in a backwards direction and can even lead to the extinction
of whole species.
It has been known as nihilism for a very long time.
It goes against everything which every decent educator teaches, and it destroys things for fun
- the philosophic equivalent of heavy metal, a dentist's drill and a wrecking ball combined.
John Rogers summed it up best in his Kung Fu Monkey blog (2009):
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: "The Lord of the
Rings" and "Atlas Shrugged." One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession
with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood,
unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Here is the RACIST GOP talking about voter restriction ---------------
After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the
explicit goal of the state's voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. "The Republican Party, the
strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party
candidates," Greer told the Post. "It's done for one reason and one reason only ... 'We've got
to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,'" he said. Indeed, the Florida
Republican Party imposed a host of policies, from longer ballots to fewer precincts in minority
areas, meant to discourage voting. And it worked. According to one study, as many as 49,000 people
were discouraged from voting in November 2012 as a result of long lines and other obstacles.
I read this book (Atlas Shrugged). Except, I skipped the 20 page rant about the virtues of greed.
Memorable is the master-race aspect of the book, whereby on a long journey to find Capitalist
Utopia somewhere hidden in the US, the protagonists stop to eat the 'best hamburger ever' which
just happens to be prepared by one of the Elite Master Race Capitalists. Why the Elite Capitalists
should somehow be endowed with god-like cooking abilities totally escaped me, but sums up the
absurdity of the book.
You read no such thing. It's obvious from your comments that you simply are lying. One wonders
what you were attempting to do, considering that there must be *some* people here who have actually
read it.
Such as poverty wages, practical if not legal enslavement of employees and their families by employers,
lots of sick and injured people dying for lack of medical care, shoddily made and downright DANGEROUS
stuff being sold in your "free markets", including poisoned food, medicines that aren't what they
are said to be nor do what they are said to do by their sellers, bidycles that break injuring
or killing their riders, ferries that aren;t maintained and therefore sink killing lots of passengers,
more Triangle Shirtwaist fires, more Cocoanut Grove and Station fires, ecological destruction,
a return to the housing conditions of NYC tenements c.1895, the complete trampling of the rights
of those without great wealth . . . In short FASCISM. Rand can lead to nothing else.
Yes, it is truly amazing how capitalism as practiced in the USA today provides so much freedom
and individuality to the modern day slavemasters. Meanwhile, the former working class has the
freedom to shop at Family Dollar, and the individuality of a trailer park.
WHat you smoking? wage slavery is exactly what capitalism provides for teh vast majority of people.
Reasonable regulations, and democratic socialism provide the FREEDOM people need in order to be
the best human they can become and do the best work they can do, while being protected form the
"malefactors of great [and other degrees of] wealth"
TO post what youpsoted, you must be either a troll, an idiot or willfully ignoratn of REALITY.
The lessons of history (real, not Limbaugh/ Fox/Breitbart/Infowars/Trump/K. Conway's "alternative
fact" version) are very plain. The freedom and well-being of most or ALL of us depends on treating
the LEAST powerful among us well, and CONSTRAINING the freedom of the powerful (especially, and
everyone else generally) to do unethical and unjust stuff to others. The powerful have never been
prevented from doing anything that is ethical by democracy, social democracy or Marxism.
Strangely enough I thought most of mankind's greatest achievements happened during war time when
large groups of people gathered together for collective advantage unconstrained by monetary considerations.
That some commercialised the achievements later does not make them the creators. I doubt most
of histories significant scientists were driven by greed, some even fought religious persecution
to be heard. From an Australian perspective, my guess is that a strike by the 'wealth creators
or men of talent', would lead to lower road tolls and broadband that works.
Just like any other religious huckster, Ayn Rand pandered to the selfish and gave them a "philosophy"
to justify their position. They're able to get away with it because our civilization is strong
enough to tolerate a few uncivilized people like these. Of course, if the uncivilized begin to
dominate, we will no longer have a civilization.
Rand and Hannan? An erudite simpleton. Give me a fucking break. And Jarvid?? And then there's
Trump too... "Move along now, no intellectualism here. Nothing to see, move along..."
The old stereotypical image of the dunce used to be some kid sent to the corner of the room with
a cone-shaped hat with a big "D" on it. Being stupid used to be an ignominious thing.
Not any more.
Objectivitists - Randians - are some of the thickest people who have ever lived. Selfishness as
a philosophy...or more accurately a permanent state of adolescence. No wonder Trump wants to be
part of the new gang. Still if all these thrusting new silicon valley types want to advertise
their lack of insight by so clearly demonstrating their allegiance to this infantile delusion
it makes me thankful in one way. It makes them easier to avoid. I won't have to waste one second
discussing their idiocies.
As Benjamin Franklin said when asked what government America was going to have...an idiocracy
if you can keep it. And he was right...so right.
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are works of fiction from the disturbed mind
of Ayn Rand. A cult following arose around Rand. That's really all one needs to know to be very
wary of those who adhere to such unfounded fictional unrealistic and irrational beliefs about
people and life.
Without a higher Law, whether it is from your own soul, or laid down by an external entity, there
is no justification for either atheists Rand or the leftists and communists who denounce her.
Man's search for meaning does not lead one to Rand or Marx. However I find Rand to be acceptable
to a greater degree, while Marxism or it's lighter version, Socialism insults and dehumanizes
people.
While Rand's economic theories are logical, and has successfully transformed countries, Marxism
has failed to up lift anyone, and has only enslaved people everywhere they have ruled. Marxism
is nothing but a collection of meaningless slogans of the type found in Mao's Red Book.
USSR, China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and now Venezuela.
EU and the West are slouching towards the same destination
"Without a higher Law, whether it is from your own soul, or laid down by an external entity, there
is no justification for either atheists Rand or the leftists and communists who denounce her."
There we have it , folks.
You're either with Kim Jong-Un, or you're with Ayn Rand.
The left supported the emergence of the New Soviet Man, but got only the same old Russian drunk.
The NSDAP projected the Herrenvolk. Lead by a sawed off, mad runt. There was a joke that the perfect
Aryan was as tall, blond, with the light complexion and blue eyes of Adolf, with the magnificent
physique of Fatso Goering and as handsome as Goebbels (nicknamed Poison Dwarf, behind his back).
Why limit your choice to one among three demostrated failures? See Social Democracy, or Democratic
Socialism. See anarcho-syndicalism. See Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Jesus,-
all "leftists" according to your categorizations.
What Rand advocates is an approach to life that's unlike anything you've ever heard before. Selfishness,
in her philosophy, means:
Follow reason, not whims or faith.
Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
Earn genuine self-esteem.
Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.
Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.
At the dawn of our lives, writes Rand, we "seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's
potential." Rand's philosophy is that vision. aynrand.org
Rand opposed racism and any legal application of racism. She considered affirmative action
to be an example of legal racism.[92] Rand advocated the right to legal abortion.[93] Rand believed
capital punishment is morally justified as retribution against a murderer, but dangerous due to
the risk of mistakenly executing innocent people and opening the door to state murder. She therefore
said she opposed capital punishment "on epistemological, not moral, grounds."[94] She opposed
involuntary military conscription, but also thought those who avoided being drafted should be
held criminally liable.[95] She opposed any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on
pornography, opinion or worship, famously quipping; "In the transition to statism, every infringement
of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners"--wikipedia---
What Rand advocates is a society for Narcissists. The woman was a freaktoid as off the planet
as L Ron Hubbard was .... another manipulative fiction writer with very disturbed mind.
To balance her philosophy with reality another book that should be read is "free will" by sam
harris. This short, well written book uses simple logical steps to completely discredit the self-centred
approach that rand represents. No one is self-made, we all needed opportunities and even a strong
work ethic is a product of genetic and social lottery. Cannot recommend highly enough.
I'm a big Sam Harris fan. 50 years from now Harris will be regarded as great moral philosopher
& a true visionary - but 50 years from now may be too late to learn his lessons. In any case I
recommend his The End of Faith & especially The Moral Landscape as essential reading.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
The "libertarians" would still be doing what they're doing, using some other pice of drivel as
justification. See conservative christians' use of the Bible v. the teachings of Jesus, especially,
and Moses for an example of how that works.
Ah the left. If you're threatened by hyperbolic fiction, try reading of the works of those who
suffered mightily under your failed socialist utopia. Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" or "The
Truth That Killed" by Georgi Markov immediately come to mind.
"...when Western revolutionaries shout about radical change in the world and a happy future
life under socialism or Communism, we want to tell them: come join us under the lid...They do
not know the meaning of the words they mouth and they become intoxicated by their infantile fantasies.
We know the meaning. We have paid the highest price to learn it."
Oh yes...now I remember. All those nice third world people who were dying to be saved from dehumanizing
communism. No..not dying, you lot fucking killed them!
Vietnam,Laos, Guatemala, Chile,East Timor, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, Haiti, Iran, Iraq...on
and on...never satisfied...military Keynesianism, what's the point in them if you don't use them...take
that motherfuckers from 10,000 miles away...free trade, free markets, freedom to work states,
leader of the free world...those tiny. little. babies. So tiny. They were on TV. Ivanka saw it
on Fox. New policy. Sorry Steve.
Hitch had a good comment about this crackpot and her 'crackolytes':
"I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement (Libertarians)
in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough."
Well, well, well ... Trump loves the Fountainhead ... a moronic piece of writing by a schlock
writer. Rand's characters are so flat they disappear, her plots contrived and patently idiotic,
their dialogue consists of a seemingly endless series of pedantic diatribes about the merits of
selfishness and the pitfalls of altruism. Of course the "novels" are just her advertisements for
her idiotic philosophy, Objectivism, a philosophy she eschewed in her private life.
Of course, Objectivism found favour with Milton Freedman and the Chicago school of economics
where, in due course, it became known as neo-Liberalism. It is the same neo-Liberalism that of
course is responsible for the export of jobs from America that seems to bother Herr Trump so much.
Trump, the con-man is simply playing the people while he and his pals set the stage to "clean
up". Bloody amazing!
No thanks. It is exactly this type of philosophy that has got the world into the mess it is in
now - economically, politically, environmentally and socially.
We have had enough of selfish greed, and if we don't stop it it will stop us.
Sorry, but it is extremist zealots like the followers of Mohammad, Marx, Hitler, Chavez and the
list goes on and on.
Rands rugged individualism does not allow sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the masses.
Beware those that require subjugation for the benefit of the greater good. Freedom is the the
right to choose your own path, and succeed or fail on your decision. But never demand others sacrifice
for your benefit.
so then we can assume that you use none of the resources that "the masses" have created - public
roads, libraries, schools, transport, Police forces, hospitals (assuming there that you are not
American - they let you die in a ditch without private health insurance). That is the problem
with the libertarian "philosophy" - it's all about the individual until the individual wants or
needs something from the public purse. Oh, and since you added Mohammed to your "extremist zealot"
list I would suggest you might want to add Jesus. He was all about sharing - loaves and fishes
spring to mind - and I would imagine he would look askance at the people that have hijacked his
name in the pursuit of power and money.
In he U.S. everyone over a certain age gets social security. Including Trump if he choose to receive
it. It would be very minimal do to the fact he has large income from other sources.
No! They have to contribute for a minimum of ten years, less if born before 1929 as Rand was.
Ironically trump would qualify for a quite hefty SS payment as the size of the benefit is related
to the size of the contribution which is related to earned income.
The question is then, has Trump ever earned income or has he just wheeled and dealt?
The fact that a few CEOs support Rand does not justify tarring the rest of the 4m or so residents
of 'Silicon Valley' with her hateful beliefs, but I notice that this characterization is vey common
in the Guardian these days. It must be hard to see creative and profitable activity going on that
is not controlled by the people's committees.
It is not a matter a political opinion, it is a matter of functioning. The newspaper was the bible
and the TV news was the mass. You had to receive it as it were, no discussion. You would chose
one or another but still it was the same one-way traffic, a media telling people how it is. The
internet changed the whole perspective, you make up your own news set.
That is sooooo typical of what living in America really like and what the focus is usually on.
These same state govts will then provide grants and huge tax breaks to private contractors
to demolish a 3 to 5 year old shopping mall only to build another on the same spot. It's good
for business and jobs.
Individual rights and anti-regulation extremists in america means that trucks and semi-trailers
are not fitted with wheel wells or mud flaps. Try driving behind one of them at night on a wet
road in the midwest. LOL
she was forced to pay into the system that she later collected from ...
Social Security is not voluntary. Your participation is forced through payroll taxes, with no
choice to opt out even if you think the program harmful to your interests. If you consider such
forced "participation" unjust, as Rand does, the harm inflicted on you would only be compounded
if your announcement of the program's injustice precludes you from collecting Social Security.
one can take the position it is unjust and still partake because you were forced too do so
...
I think drugs should be legal --- but if I take drugs and get caught I could get into trouble
-
OMG noooo, we're all going to die, lose our souls and liberty by being forced to pay into social
security or some other decreed retirement savings account by a govt elected by the people for
the people and of the people.
I cannot face this ongoing oppression by my rational logical peers with common sense .....
my life is not worth living under such an evil force!
(shaking my head in disbelief that people actually believe these kinds of stupid fictional
myths)
It is not a coincidence that the founder of the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey, took Ayn Rand as
his primary ideological inspiration. Read "The Satanic Bible" and it's nothing but Rand dressed
up in a brash Luciferian lingo. This is why I find it especially amusing that so many Evangelical
right-wing Business and Government types in the U.S. can't get enough of her.
Doesn't it work the other way around? Subjectivism in a nutshell: There is no objective reality
separate from social consciousness, therefore I can change lanes without signalling"?
If you accept the existence of reality, and want to live, you signal.
Just as downtrodden Second World nations were controlled and forced into a Communist environment
then surely Randism is the diametric opposite point of destruction within the developed world
- one where no one had any fks to give because the few have helped themselves to all the cake.
The cake is baked by someone. It belongs to him. If he hires people to help him, they are remunerated
according to terms voluntarily accepted in advance.
Wealth is not a static quantity. It is expanded by the intelligence of men in devising new
ways to use natural materials and natural forces. Where was the iPhone 30 years ago? Where was
the city of London 3000 years ago? Wealth is produced, not doled out.
Do not forget that individualism doesn't exclude altruism, but a chosen altruism, not a forced
one, a fake one like in the socialist countries. There are no bigger givers to charities than
the Silicon Valley giants.
Tax write-offs/incentives, philanthropic guilt, a desire to leave colossal ego assuaging monument
to their outstanding 'humanity' and cosmetic share-holder appeasement.
Guilt?? I think you don't know at all how these people function. Any billionnaire sends back a
lot of money in the system, nobody ever sits on his pile of gold.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, and reacting to some of the comments made in Rand's favour.
One thing she was against was mediocrity and nepotism. How does one assess the former? Business
elites tend to evaluate each other by their own standards, with the result that they regard themselves
as brilliant minds striving against petty regulation. Public service is seen as mediocre because
it is, well, public service. One might observe that a businessman who had been bankrupted six
times, was mediocre or worse, however, he can still be presented as a success.
As to the second point, how many CEOs and business people did not have help from familial contacts
or friends on their way up? How many started right at the bottom of the ladder as Andrew Carnegie
did? Or did they get a small loan (only a million dollars...) from parents, an internship or even
a position through a family friend, or were simply appointed to a senior position by a doting
dad.
The point is that Rand objected to these practices, but all those Rand acolytes of the market
red in tooth and claw seem happy to ignore those parts of her philosophy that might impinge negatively
upon them.
Or did they get a small loan (only a million dollars...) from parents, an internship or
even a position through a family friend, or were simply appointed to a senior position by a
doting dad.
It would be survivorship
bias to assume that financial or business success precludes mediocrity.
Last Week Tonight sums up Ayn Rand perfectly in its 'How Is This Still A Thing?' segment (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
). The Randian philosophy has become the mainstay icon within the GOP and strands of right-wing
Libertarianism (very different to Chomskyite left-lib ethos).
Ron Paul (and his father Rand Paul), Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan are passionate advocates along
with Donald Trump (with a more convoluted affect) of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
We must collectively unravel the 'power animal' behind her doctrine in order to take on the
Republican exploitation of the American political system.
Ah, yes. The New Man of the New Morality. The brilliant minds of Pure Capitalism and Self-Interest
that shape the course of humanity: the True Good...were up Shitts Creek eight years ago until
the The puny Little Men via the Evil State bailed the MFers out to the tune of a trillion $. And
then there's all the wars we pay for and fight, not to mention the consumer crap we buy to serve
the the New Man's Galt's Gulch.
Ayn rand missed the point of what she was struggling to write about - The people who read her
books are the very one's she is railing against.. All politicians and entrepreneurs and impressarios
and university heads of departments etc., are second stringers - They feed off the ideas of the
truly brilliant and then claim the credit. The truly original are a rare breed indeed..
The fools who say "there is no god" are like this boob down below, "imipak," who says things like
"this or that should be shut down." Someone ALWAYS is the one in authority. ALWAYS. If it's not
GOD, then it is Government, but there's ALWAYS someone to whom dillholes like this guy look, to
"shut it down." Whatever IT is...
What do you call six Objectivists on a desert island?
Cannibals.
What is that you say? Egotistical, selfish narcissists fall in love with the torrid tepid childish
prose of a hack who provides them with an "ethical" framework to justify their own immorality
and generally bad behavior? Say it isn't so.
On the real side though, being an adherent to Objectivism should not only disqualify you from
holding any position of power over the lives of others, it should disqualify you from ever being
taken seriously about anything. Maybe even exclude you from conversation period. Seriously. If
you're an Objectivist? Kill yourself. Take one for the team. Oh. That's right. There is no "team"
in "I". I'm kidding of course.
Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't even thinking about you, carl. Unless you're an Objectivist,
in which case I don't take you seriously anyway.
Society is reliant upon the interaction and cooperation of groups to accomplish what individuals
cannot. That is part and parcel of what makes civilization possible. Without people caring for
other people, we'd still be living in caves and being hunted by very large animals. Since that
level of concern for the group is entirely in opposition to the near perfect immorality that is
Objectivism, it is by definition an inherently anti-social point of view. What I want you to do
is put you money where your mouth is. Don't take advantage of anything you and you alone didn't
pay for directly. Do everything by and for yourself. See how that works out for you and your TPS
reports.
Mmm, yeah.
But want a person who follows an egotistical code of greed and self-worship take care of me?
Maybe you didn't understand the words I wrote earlier about Objectivists and positions of responsibility.
Being hard of understanding is a common affliction among the Randians.
Now run along and find somebody who cares about how much maintaining civilization is your personal
burden. Because the whole of creation obviously revolves around you, carl. Because that is how
disaffected teenagers, the mentally ill and/or the irredeemably evil think.
It only hurts because it's true and it's only funny because comedy is the truth only faster.
The Republican speaker of the US House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, is so committed a Randian,
he was famous for giving every new member of his staff a copy of Rand's gargantuan novel, Atlas
Shrugged ----from the above article---------
Paul Ryan after his wealthy LAWYER father passed away went to school using Social Security
benefits. Yet he would cancel SS if he could, making old people eat cat food while he eats for
free in the capital cafeteria.
Rand who spewed against government, WENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY !!!!!
GOP Ryan also gets free health care that we the tax payer pay for.
Name a GOP member who is giving up their FREE HEALTHCARE ????
Remember Rand is worshipped by the GOP fools,
Rand followers are part of a HYPOCRITICAL CULT !!!
( remember again Rand leeched off government by going on SS )
how did she leach when she received benefits that she paid into that she had to by law???
Social Security is not voluntary. Your participation is forced through payroll taxes, with
no choice to opt out even if you think the program harmful to your interests. If you consider
such forced "participation" unjust, as Rand does, the harm inflicted on you would only be compounded
if your announcement of the program's injustice precludes you from collecting Social Security.
Your argument has been refuted a number of times. Here's a good one, from The Objective Standard:
Such is the utter inanity of today's left, which claims that the victims of government rights
violations cannot complain about those violations because and to the extent that the victims
are victimized.
Ayn Rand offered a retort to such absurdities in her 1966 essay, "The Question of Scholarships"
(in the book The Voice of Reason). Although Rand here specifically addresses tax-subsidized
scholarships, her reasoning applies to all cases of recouping some of one's wealth taken for
government programs:
The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards
it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public
scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a
paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.
Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others,
and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the
unearned benefit of others-the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally
guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally
worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury
done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them
distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state
laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.
Contrary to the smears of the left, there is no contradiction or lack of integrity in condemning
a rights-violating government program that one is forced to finance, while simultaneously recouping
some benefit from that program. To forego the opportunity to recoup some of one's stolen money
would be to compound the injustice.
The victims of right-violating government programs should proudly and righteously condemn
those programs-and seek to minimize the injustice of the programs by recouping whatever value
they can from them. Far from hypocrisy, this is an act of integrity: recognizing the full truth
and upholding one's principles accordingly. ( http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-moral-integrity-of-condemning-social-security-while-collecting-it/
)
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!
After reading through the comments, I want to add one that is unique and strange, but it has truth
to it:
This woman made a statement, and Jesus also made this statement- "No man ought to judge another."
I don't see Objectivism as prohibiting selfless compassion AT ALL! But don't YOU even BEGIN to
JUDGE ME as to the "sufficiency" of my compassion. It is none of your business. Nor is yours mine.
And if you don't take my tax money at gunpoint, then I will not judge YOU EITHER.
I have to admit I have not read Ayn Rand, only heard mainly those on the left criticising her
philosophical position but I have read her favourite novel and her introduction to it.
I think this book Calumet K shows what she really believes and it is not necessarily everything
her reputation suggests. What she is really impressed about is the efficacious man (in this case
the somewhat lowly but determined hero of this novel) and presumably woman too.
So her hero is neither the captain of industry and capitalism nor the collective voice of unionised
labour but someone who just perseveres to get a job done.
This certainly is not Trump or many others I can see in politics or at the head of large corporations
or selfish hard nosed businesses who have no care for their workforce.
I suppose it is a romantic view of what is possible when an ordinary person simply wants to achieve
the task which has been set.
I wonder if her acolytes would really follow her if she was alive today.
"Her novel The Fountainhead is one of the few works of fiction that Donald Trump likes and she
has long been the darling of the US right. But only now do her devotees hold sway around the world"
her devotees hold sway around the world - hahah you are kidding right?
Given that every ill in the world is based on Greed I seriously counter that argument S pure evil
and ignorance. Really? Apple Computers is evil? One mans vision to create ideas and wealth is
evil? perhaps its completely moral and you have just been getting the wrong advice for decades
what is the cure for poverty around the world, as social enterprises are learning?
entrepreneurship
or we can throw trillions of dollars at it like we have and be worse off
think about it
what has forced altruism given us beyond socialism?
I have no idea what you are talking about - I am not the one who said Apple were greedy or corrupt.
I think you should know I was referring to corrupt practices and corporate greed - I don't need
to name names.
I have read a lot of science fiction and speculative fiction in my life.
Ayn Rand's works The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were some of the worst books
I have ever read, in the technical sense. Terrible writing, ridiculous plots, really pathetic
characters.
I really don't understand what all the fuss was about from her fans. Except here was someone
telling them that they were not, in fact, losers, but temporarily embarrassed millionaires who
had been cheated by the System (run by commies, natch).
It is said that there are people who like Rand's philosophy and her writing; there are people
who like her philosophy but don't like her writing; there are people who don't like either; BUT
there are VERY few people who don't like her philosophy and still like her writing!
Talking to a Randroid is a royal pain: "We live according to a RATIONALIST philosophy!" Which
is almost identical to claiming to live according to the word of God, in that the only response
is: "That and pocket money will buy you coffee."
I have thought about reading her books, to see what they are like, but their reputation for turgidity
puts me right off. Given that Trump barely reads at all, I'm very suspicious of his claim to have
ploughed through it. He probably just had a flunkey read out a few selected passages.
Often overlooked when writing about Rand seems to be the obvious influence on her of Nietzsche
and Stirner, two German philosophers very fashionable during her formative years, who both may
be considered personifications of the European decadence. It looks like together with Nietzschean
Superman the US imported and thoroughly appropriated the stalest concepts of the century-old continental
culture. Also worth noting that, while extolling private entrepreneurship, Rand did it through
the imagery of two cultural phenomena most associated today with socialism: modern, constructivist
architecture and railways. And, by the way, her self-made protagonists in Atlas Shrugged only
succeed through science fiction, inventing most improbable things with the substantial help from
the author (one of those inventions is, essentially, a perpetual motion machine).
"Here Roark gives way to John Galt, another capitalist genius, who leads a strike by the "men
of talent" and drive, thereby depriving society of "the motor of the world".
He starts a union. I wouldn't know what else to call it.
They don't strike, they migrate elswhere and work under an established set of rules.
I went on a "strike of the mind" in 2003 because of reading Atlas Shrugged. I haven't worked more
than 5 hours a week since. If America thinks I'm out of the loop because I don't have debt, don't
work, don't text, don't have a dumbphone, and don't vote in the "left vs right" paradigm...then
you keep you enslavement. I'll keep my debt-free, rock climbing, skiing, and free time lifestyle.
Deal?
Ayn Rand has come of age? That Free Trade thing has collapsed the American Economy. Her fans are
potheads and city dudes. Is Greed and Selfishness a political system now? While most of America
calls for a moratorium on Immigration Rand's devotees want more and more. An endless supply of
cheap labor crushing our standards of living. Rand is the polar opposite of American Opinion.
I don't think "free trade" was really free. It, like all other monikers of political origin, was
a big lie. It was probably about as free as "equal rights" are equal.
Glad it's The Fountainhead . In an early chapter, a school for gifted children designed
by Philip Johnson, er, Howard Roark, is repurposed as a school for special-needs children. They
are described thusly:
In September the tenants of the Home moved in. A small, expert staff was chosen by Toohey.
It had been harder to find the children who qualified as inmates. Most of them had to be taken
from other institutions. Sixty-five students, their ages ranging from three to fifteen, were
picked out by zealous ladies who were full of kindness and so made a point of rejecting those
who could be cured and selecting only the hopeless cases. There was a fifteen-year-old boy
who had never learned to speak; a grinning child who could not be taught to read or write;
a girl born without a nose, whose father was also her grandfather; a person called "Jackie"
of whose age or sex nobody could be certain. They marched into their new home, their eyes staring
vacantly, the stare of death before which no world existed. . . . .
. . . . "She was elated on the day when Jackie, the least promising one of the lot, achieved
a completed work of imagination. Jackie picked up fistfuls of colored felt strips and a pot
of glue, and carried them to a corner of the room . . . Catherine walked over to Jackie and
saw, spread out on the ledge, the recognizable shape of a dog, brown, with blue spots and five
legs. Jackie wore an expression of pride. "Now you see, you see?" Catherine said to her colleagues.
Isn't it wonderful and moving! There's no telling how far the child will go with proper encouragement.
See what happens to their little souls if they are frustrated in their creative instincts!
It's so important not to deny them a chance for self-expression. Did you see Jackie's face?"
Life unworthy of life, as the Nazis called such children. Yes, this will certainly go over
big with the special-needs families, their well-wishers, and anyone with an inkling of human compassion.
The resulting scramble for deniability and blame shifting should be edifying. Like Paul Ryan,
they never knew that was in there, because they never actually read the thing.
From a literary perspective her novels are long on soliloquy pandering to to Juvenal hero worship
with little human emotion or deep substance. For a better understanding of Rand's philosophy one
should read her "Objectivist Epistemology". This long ponderous and conflicted tome can be boiled
down to the simple idea that collectivism is bad. Understandable given that she was a refugee
from the Soviet Union. Had her books not been promoted by a number of influential industrialists
who viewed them as bolstering their images great Americans they would have moldered in the slush
piles of of every publisher where they were submitted.
Ayn Rand was the psychopathic product of a completely fucked up family. Her lack of emotion stemmed
from this and created a monster philosophy that is played out by psychopaths today.
Ayn Rand was the psychopathic product of a completely fucked up family. Her lack of emotion stemmed
from this and created a monster philosophy that is played out by psychopaths today.
Ayn Rand, one of this nation's greatest writers and thinkers and an antidote to the evils of socialism
and all forms collectivism. A true champion of liberty, rationality and the moral necessity of
capitalism.
Ayn Rand advocated the mass slaughtering of the poor, the cooperative, in fact anyone who did
not fit her vision of the world. As with all populist leaders, she exhibited psychopathic and
sociopathic tendencies.
She cared nothing about doing a good job, only about sating her overblown ego.
If Silicon Valley has become a devotee, it should be shut down. It isn't fit for any purpose,
least of all technology. Those who follow her ramblings should be locked up in asylums until treatments
exist for their cure.
Such monstrosities should be no more tolerated than their religious counterparts. And, yes,
they are counterparts. Prophets who advocate death to the heretics and the unbelievers should
not get a free ride simply because they preach their hate through economics forums rather than
makeshift temples.
Why my fury? Surely that should be obvious from my username. Worship at the shrine of Servalan
all you like, don't go begging for help when it goes wrong. And it ALWAYS goes wrong.
Correct and she was not all there, she had visions of delusions for she believed in divine right
of the elect and wealthy. She must have believed the story of the ' War of the Worlds" which separated
the lower and 'higher' classes, completely.
You sound like a Nazi or someone from the Ministry of Truth; or a bolshevik; if you re-read your
post and apply it to yourself, you will need to agree you need to be institutionalized and your
internet needs to be shut down. You should not get a free ride simply because you preach your
hatred and intolerance through a Guardian forum.
The writer is too kind to Rand. She was a bitter and evil person who wanted what she saw as her
birthright. The ability to control and dominate through inherited wealth. That is what she advocated
and that is what her fans hope to implement.
Preposterous given I love Rand and come from very poor parents. How could I possibly expect to
inherit more than ten grand?? Nice try though. What I try to implement from Rand is simply this:
If you disincentive me (Social Security Tax and it's obvious bankruptcy) from wanting to work,
then I will not. I haven't. Hence the sceen name. If you like your work, you keep it. Me, I'll
climb now and give our "rigged" financial system whereby the Dow goes up forever, I might work
later. maybe.
Rands philosophy provides the best explanation of what rights are and where they derive from-
not the all powerful state or a god. She was a very nessssary reaction to the all powerful collectivist
and over centralized states (Nazi, communist, comand economy and pusdocorporate) in the twentieth
century.
Enlightened self interest is the best possible explanation for human behavior- for every selfless
do-gooder you can site I can an equal number of people who act to spite of there own interest
(Brexit voters / U.K. / EU)- but overall the theory holds.
However like all philosophers she oversimplifies a complex world and (lack of any compulsion regulation-
irrational actors -those who can't or refuse to work.
As the world rapidly approaches the threshold of AI/robots replacing human workers, the Randians
are gitty as they plan to slash their human workforce.
The bottom 90%. that during their 40 or 50 years of work will likely never enjoy a moment of
the quality of life enjoyed on a daily basis by Jobs, Thiel, etc., are growing weary and impatient
with objectivism, neoliberalism, fascism, and greed. Knowledge of the silliness of isms has spread
to the serfs that have been left out and ignored. They see a future which includes a course correction;
perhaps it will be a total inversion.
Replace, then nothing will be left. The Randians will die along with everyone else.
Augment, and you will attain a level of socialism and egalitarianism that Rand devotees would
fume and spit at, but which will lead all others to greater heights. The Randites will, finally,
be shown to be a genetically defective branch of humanity doomed to extinction. The sooner the
better.
All somewhat missing the point which is that the problem is not with the few genuine visionaries
and risk takers necessary to advance society but with the armies of dullards, apparatchiks and
hangers-on whose primary interest is self-preservation and whose main talent is to form vast vested-interest
networks to maintain the status quo. Which is why failed banks get billions in state bailouts
instead of being left to eat dirt.
That, too, is missing the point. Give me a lever and a place to stand and I can move the Earth.
Give me an adequate budget restricted to education and carte blanche on the emphasis in that education
for the twenry years it would take to rebuild humanity, and I can guarantee:
1) The national IQ will go up 15 points above what would be predicted by the Flynn Effect,
2) The number of highly-skilled, educated, risk-takers will rise from one or two per subject
per generation to around a hundred thousand per subject per generation.
3) Certain classes of genetically-induced mental illness could be erased from society, including
sociopathy.
For those who may not be familiar with The Conversation, it's an online free source and they
describe themselves 'Academic rigor, journalistic flair'
They produce a number of versions, Africa, Australia, UK, France, Global, United States and you
can sign up and get a daily email with the most recent articles available.
The most recent article on Ayn Rand is from Firmin DeBrabander
Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art
and in keeping with the premise of The Conversation, carries the statement:
"Disclosure statement
Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company
or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations
beyond the academic appointment above."
"if you've devoted your life to enriching yourself and wealth is what you value the most, you
don't care as much about other people. But it goes beyond that, argues Chomsky. "It's also institutional.
In its more pathological form, it's Ayn Rand ideology: 'I just don't care about anyone else. I'm
only interested in benefiting myself. That's good and noble."
"It's responsibility to yourself. You're maximizing your own short-term gain."
Beyond the financial crash brought on by Wall Street greed, another area where short-term gain
presents a dire threat to humanity is climate change. "It's imminent that global warming will
cause a major catastrophe ... if you don't pay attention to it because it's an externality: 'I'm
interested in gain, not what happens to my grandchildren' -- then you're going to accelerate the
disaster." (Chomsky)
Ayn Rand was a modern day equivalent of the Medieval Schoolmen who wandered the courts of Europe
to provide superficially plausible intellectual justifications for the local Emperor or King,
for their actions to enrich themselves and keep the peasants in check. It just goes to show there
is nothing, and I mean nothing, new under the Sun. It is a tribute to the irrelevance of intelligence
to credulity!!
Short-term gains are mostly lost in the noise. That's why Chinggis Khan had some brilliant ideas
(religious tolerance, education for the masses, etc) but ended up being nothing more than a historical
blip.
However, the Prisoner's Dilemma reveals Ayn Rand wasn't even interested in the short-term.
Rand's philosophy will produce the worst personal outcome three times in every four. We can use
is because the Prisoner's DIlemma is only not valid when things are not blind or competitive,
but rather involve communication and/or cooperation, the two elements Rand feared and hated. Typically,
because of the personality cult factor, it's randomised across people not events.
So we can say that three in four Randites must lose in the short term by following the philosophy
of undiluted greed.
It's like the suicide squad in Life of Brian - spectacularly pointless.
I've always been puzzled by the name "objectivism" because as a moral philosophy it is entirely
subjective. That is, the morally correct thing in any situation depends on who the actor is (the
correct course of action being the one on that benefits the subject in question the most). In
objectivism there is no objective good - that is someone observing from outside the situation
has no opinion on the correct course.
For me, real objectivism holds that there is a class of actions that can be taken that will
lead to the maximum good for society (this is a necessary and sufficient condition, as society
has to do the purchasing and it has to be something society can be persuaded readily it wants)
and which does optimal good to the individual (all other options may lead to transient, narrow
good that is greater but chaos theory says that what it is good for has also changed, blunting
the good), and which does no meaningful harm (since chaos theory means you change the world, the
only way to not self-harm is to Mitcham).
In other words, it's relatively simple problems in non-linear systems optimisation. You may
not always know what the optima are, but you know they exist.
And that's the core of real objectivism. By eliminating "self", "here" and "now", you see the
reality rather than the illusions.
By eliminating "self", "here" and "now" - ie by joining the Monty Python Suicide Brigade? it is
impossible to really see reality as being there affects it? So we are all in some sort of quantum
quandary where observing any event affects that event or where the actual observation is flawed
because of the observer?
I like your posts, btw, but I have no great urge to read Ayn Rand as she sounds like an extremely
unpleasant person. Hopefully your observations are the correct ones :P
Just as Marcel Duchamp transformed in front of a journalist a throw-away wooden crate into a piece
of art by proclaiming that it is a piece of art because he is an artist, so the Ayn Rand's philosophy
is a philosophy because she said it's a philosophy, and she is the one to say so because she's
a philosopher.
At the end of the day, that's the essence of proclaiming one's perception to be the measurement
of reality - and calling that Objectivism.
Good luck with teaching and learning political "theory" based on such "philosophy".
On the other hand, both science and "science" are stuck with examples of brown-nosing to the
financial and/or political power of the moment, left and right, e.g. the coincidentally perfect
moment to call a gene - of all attributes - selfish, or the equally good moment to shoehorn "choice
theory" into psychology, bringing us the miles closer to proclaiming all psychopathologies to
be - just lifestyles, and to save loads of money by not treating them.
How does getting the country involved in other people's wars count as individualism? Or a belief
in the kind of small government that allows the market full rein? Surely such involvement is the
classic example of big government meddling that screws up the market.
Bin Laden knew, and told everyone he knew, that dragging the US into unwinnable wars was how
you screwed the American economy and, ultimately, screwing that was the way to lessen American
influence in the world.
Rand's individualism and greed is good agenda has been turned on Americans by pricking their
collective pride and arrogance. Now America, and Russia although many make the mistake of thinking
only America is targeted, do not know how to react except to feed the military complexes with
war as they are led by the nose by a handful of raggedy headed Islamic fundamentalists (big on
collective action) spending trillions as a cabal of rich individuals (American and Russian oligarchs)
make themselves richer and the economy (in the case of America) struggles under a massive debt
to the last great Communist (collective action works) ideological representative in the world.
Allah Akbar is really all that can be said at the moment as the followers of the Bin Laden
theory of how to crash economies and deflate those blinded by hubris continue to set the agenda
in the MENA.
Rand's popularity is simply that she appears to give the psychopaths an intellectual basis to
claim some moral standing for their criminal avarice and arrogance
Apart from being a massive hypocrite Ayn Rand was a rubbish writer and a awful human being. Her
tinpot "philosophy" is loved by awful human beings. The End.
Rand seemed to grant intellectual heft to the prevailing ethos of the time
I'm not sure her contribution was "intellectual" so much as "spiritual." No one cites her essays
(for good reason), but rather her fiction and its grandiose and thoroughly unbelievable characters.
Perhaps Rand's hatred of of religion had its unconscious origins in fact she knew herself to be
not a theorist but theologian of capitalism. She continues to satisfy the longings of men (I didn't
any women cited in the piece--perhaps also for good reason) who have long ago sold their souls.
You didn't see any women mentioned because women aren't that stupid. Other than Thatcher and May.
The biggest difference between Rand's fiction and the Gor series is that... hmmm.... actually,
good question. They both basically advocated open slavery, debasement and rape. Ok, maybe there's
not a whole lot of difference.
Gorean communities are practically extinct because they don't actually work in practice. How
long will it take economists and the newer elements of Silicon Valley to figure out that if like-minded
obsessives couldn't make Rand's ideas work, they have no hope.
A hypocrite who had no hesitation in taking social security and medicare when she needed them,
despite a lifetime of decrying the philosophy behind them, much as her followers decry the state
but expect it to support them and bail them out when things don't work for them.
I cannot see how any adult can read her work without laughing.
Because many adults are taught through example that it's good lie, cheat, steal, even murder,
as long as you're not caught.
There are many unsolved murders in the rapper wars, including the DJ for Run DMC. Odds are
high that those guilty who are still alive are popular celebrity figures.
Nobody in America really objected to Michael Jackson's conduct towards kids, or it would have
stopped on day one. No, they objected to him getting caught. He's despised not for the harm but
for destroying the illusion of being above "the man".
Taking S/S was precisely in keeping with her philosophy. She hated the takers, the moochers, those
who lived off others. She believed in being allowed to keep what you earned, that it made you
strive even move in what you loved, and by that all mankind benefitted from your work, which is
absolutely the way it works. Yes, she took S/S, it was HER MONEY, that which they took from her,
that which was rightly hers, just like money you paid into your bank account is yours. You not
going to collect on it? I'll take it then, and can just skip down the road practicing your phony
piety..
"Communities secretary Sajid Javid reads the courtroom scene in Rand's The Fountainhead twice
a year and has done so throughout his adult life." Wow, I can just imagine the scintillating
dinner party conversation going on in that household! It would seem that most Rand devotees and
hardline Republicans in general are just in need of good belly laugh to dilute some of that unrelenting
earnestness and paranoia. I would recommend regular readings of "Harpo Speaks" which I chew through
every couple of years; if they can't find any humour there, then there's no hope. Of course they
wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, being a 'Marxian' doctrine and all.....
Seriously, if you want to get into the mindset of the assorted bankers, financiers, politicians
and greed merchants destroying our society and environment READ THIS BOOK! (or as much as you
can between intermittent rolling on the floor laughing).
No just destroying society and the environment, but the author finding this good. Satanic churches
probably regard Atlas Shrugged as a far better bible than their own, much greater evil and it's
all rewarded.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
The irony is, so do many of the self-professed randians mentioned in this article. I don't know
enough about silicon valley to comment on that side of things, but pretty much everyone listed
before that would not be the protagonist in a Rand novel.
Ayn Rand is the favorite of wealthy people and rebellious teenagers round the world and always
has been. And especially wealthy people who still behave like rebellious teenagers well into adulthood.
Looking at you Trump and Silicone Valley...
Rand is to individualism what Stalin was to collectivism. Thankfully she never got her hands on
power...unfortunately her followers now have... and we are now living with and dying from the
consequences.
A Star Trek 'Mirror-Universe' version of Emma Goldman.
A spotty, half-baked mixture of ideas stolen and warped from anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotki
(both of them much better writers than Ayn Rand), the only difference being that Bakunin and Kropotkin
didn't consider human decency tantamount to slavery.
Nonetheless, it's hard to disagree, big government is shite. The fact that ther are a bunch
of elected officials who hold their own elected positions in complete antipathy is partly the
reason why everything is going tits up, and partly down to the complete betrayal of their own
purported 'libertarian' principles. A defining principle of Libertarianism is non-aggression,
recent events have exposed a mind-numbing level of hypocrisy.
I've read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and you have to be simpleminded or desperate
to justify your capitalist ideology not to see them, not only as bad literature, but as a self-serving
excercise in binary thinking - selfishness is sometimes good therefore it's always good, altruism
is sometimes bad therefore it's always bad. Therefore a system that embraces selfishness and rejects
altruism is a good system.
Like all of us Rand is the consequence of her upbriniging. She was born in Russia and in 1917
the Russian revolution saw the state take over her father's successful small business. She was
turfed out of university for being too "bourgeois". Not surprisingly she came to hate all things
"socialist".
She then moved to 1920s America - the America of F. Scott Fitzgerald - and fell in love with
the frivolous affluence of that society.
Her philosophy consequently rejects the first and embraces the latter.
The level of denial of reality in her philosophy is illustrated in that her two novels of a
dystopian America ignores completely the 1929 Wall Street crash and the Great Depression - brought
on by economic ideas similar to those she promoted.
For someone writing in the 1930s ignoring the cataclysmic events needs a special level of denial.
Its a little like regretting we no longer use vhs or cassettes or smoke signals
I suppose you will also eventually say when we are using driverless cars that if it were not
for those ruthless engineers we'd still need cab drivers
I'm not sure that you understand what a libertarian is. Rather than reading atlas shrugges
or the fountain head perhaps you might try anarchy, state and utopia by nozick as a starter for
10
How's this for objectivism? Objectively, Rand is the worst novelist I have ever read from a major
publisher. Tissue paper characters dishwater dialogue dull plots and terrible style. Still, I
suppose she is testament to the virtue of perseverance. I have started three of her books and
not finished any of them. Unreadable. Truly.
Hadn't really thought of this for a while, but the irony of Roark being an architect? I mean,
you couldn't make it up could you?
Is there any profession where the professional relies more on others that architecture? How
is land allocated so that someone could take the risk of building on it? How about the financing?
Where to the materials come from? Who pays the workers?
Not the architect. Odd she didn't at least choose a builder. But of course its all bullshit.
But really ironic bullshit.
For people who, like Paul Ryan, manage to parlay baby blue eyes, a wealthy wife, and a rather
stunning moral lability into a rewarding political career, or who, like Peter Thiel, are clever
enough to refine a technological gimmick at an opportune moment, thereby creating a highly profitable
niche for themselves, there's a certain longing to believe it's all grander and brighter and bigger
than it really is, less a matter of luck, more a matter of a sort of genetic superiority.
Ayn Rand is perfect for them. Instead of being lucky boys who stumbled upon opportunity, they
get to be a Master Race: to play Mirror, mirror on the wall/who's the Galtest of them all?
Ultimately, men like Ryan and Thiel will have the same impact as Alan Greenspan, that Randian
trailblazer, has already had: i.e., dismal, ruinous, morally bereft, and unequivocally destructive.
But you can bet they will still be preening even amongst the smoldering ruins, because--like
their dusty, stinking old girl herself--they are clueless.
They are human wrecking-balls, narcissistic to an astonishing degree, devoid of wisdom and
empathy (the two fundamental requirements of civilized society), and quite incapable of imagining,
much less understanding, the ways in which they might be wrong.
They lead thoroughly unexamined lives. Such certainty is dangerous enough in an ordinary person;
in a billionaire or a powerful politician or bureaucrat--a Koch, a Greenspan, a Ryan, a Thiel,
a Jobs--it's potentially quite lethal.
Good to remember that Ryan's extended family--the people able to make the phone calls for him--made
their money in the Eisenhower era highway construction boom. Not exactly Hank Reardon stuff. And
that once Ryan's paeans to Rand reached a wider public, he threw her under the bus and pretended
he never heard of her.
Not exactly a true believer; more like what used to be called a rice christian .
I second Dychanwr's post. In truth Ryan et al are all Keating and are no where near being a Roark.
Or they could be more the minions of Toohey trying to fool society that they actually amass any
intelligence or talent.
I read "Atlas Shrugged," poolside, one halcyon summer during university. I was a convert! Now,
after living a little more life, I've seen that complex problems are rarely solved by applying
simplistic doctrines (especially those espoused in novels).
Rand's philosophy is perfect for the invincible mindset of adolescent boys: beware of men (and
women) who make it to adulthood and remain true believers.
All philosophy is a massive oversimplification- no existing philosophy should be used as a basis
to run a modern nation alone; however, it is people who grow up Marxist the get millions of people
killed
Selfish, egotistical, narcissistic people find a book to validate their extreme selfishness, egotism
and narcissism so they don't have to look in the mirror and feel bad about themselves anymore.
What kills me about Rand fans is that they cant imagine any other kind of freedom: this is literally
the only thing they can imagine.
In reality, a world run on her principles would be miserable and dysfunctional, as wass the
author herself. It's the literary choice for children who think only what they want is important
and they should be entitled to whatever they want.
It's like entrepreneurs who say "Got knocked down? So just pick yourself up and keep going."
What they never realise is that for every successful one of them there are 1000 others who will
work just as hard and never become a "superman."
It is a weak, unrealistic philosophy with no result but success for few and misery for most.
I interviewed Jimmy Wales, the brains behind Wikipedia once. At one point he said, "I thought
that question was a little dull," and since I was just dollying up questions for a piece praising
him, I had to avoid saying "Well at least my entire belief system isn't a massive heap of shit
dreamed up by a fascist. Now, about your charity work "
Of lung cancer, I believe, brought on by her habit of smoking. The Icon of Strength was an addict.
Not surprisingly, she rationalized her weakness as a symbol of man's conquest of fire.
Maybe Ayn Rand's philosophy was down to PTSD from living in the Soviet Union, but whatever the
reason, her philosophy is the antithesis of humanity. It has no place ever, at any time, anywhere.
I read her books many years ago, appalled by her promotion of selfishness and yes, glorifying
so-called alpha males who believe that thumping their corporate chests is the highest calling
for a human being. Ayn Rand's philosophy is a fetid pile of maggot-infested offal.
Some commentators have noted that a childhood experience of cruelty by her mother, who gave away
her favourite toys to an orphanage, may have coloured her view of altruism. The vituperative nature
of Rand's lifelong loathing of Freudian psychoanalysis gives this claim additional weight.
I don't have children but if I did I would be waiting at the door for them to get home from school
to insist they forgot everything they learned that day about Rand.
Mind you with the Tory politicisation of our education system a better approach, and less time
consuming, would probably be to home school the kids...
I think the point of putting it on the A level politics curriculum would be to enable students
to see what tripe some politicians lean on for their ideas.
atlas shrugged beyond any doubt the most repetitive, boring, turgid rubbish I've ever managed
to get halfway through before wondering why the hell id just wasted a few hours of life. anyone
who could possibly claim to be inspired by it really needs to get out more
Ayn Rand was novelist publicist of an ideology developed by Hayek et al. through misunderstanding
what happened in Austria after the cataclysm of WW1 (see Tony Judt). The real villain (or hero,
if you must), in all this is Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys. What's the difference between
Rand and Friedman in moral outlook? Nothing I can see.
Capitalism is forced altruism if do not make something or provide a service that I can be paid
for then I cannot sustain myself. Although not perfect the other experiments in government led
to massacres of millions of people. Any thing that promises utopia has always led to mass slaughter,
all gods have failed.
Please don't waste any money, just borrow the one book you won't read in full or speed-read from
a library. To describe her laughable protagonists as characters promotes a disservice to those
fully rounded entities of Noddy and Bob the Builder.
The difference between Ayn Rand and Marx is that Marx followers created some of the most horrific
political systems in human history - Soviet Russia and Communist China, and are together directly
responsible for deaths of tens of millions of innocent people and suffering of perhaps, billions.
While Ayn Rand followers created stable democracies like UK where state-condoned death of a citizen
is almost unthinkable.
So Mr. Monbiot, by comparing Mrs Rand to Marx, is showing how pathetic his worldview is, and
to what lengths he will go to push his leftie agenda.
Marx followers created some of the most horrific political systems in human history
Marx writings have little to nothing in common with what became of Russia, or most other places.
I see more Marxism in democratic socialism, and even there one can debate what country managed
to interpret socialist principles. Marx critiqued exploitation very early on - both regarding
labour and the environment. He would have been horrified to see how his ideas had been simplistically
hijacked.
I am a fan but so was Alan Greenspan and look at the mess he made. I often think: if I were alone
in the wilderness would I have thought up any of the things we take for granted today. It seems
unlikely, as all these modern conveniences we take for granted had to come from someone's mind
and then had to have capital to promote and produce whatever it is we are using. Even something
as simple as a pencil!
the fountainhead is the greatest collection of dead trees stuck together that I keep in a pillowcase
under my bed. I may have to add all the sequels aka the art of the deal and whatever else Trump
sticks on a page to that security system
I knew nothing of her until "all watched over by machines of loving grace" from the BBC. However,
she is an influence, so right to be studied. I want everyone to say that her philosophy has untold
damage, for the benefit of the few. Obviously, we can't all be billionaires, that would be communism.
Any Rands philosophy is sickening and a true example of the 'far right' versus national socialists
who are a blend of far left and right.
It's heartening to see that readers are generally unimpressed though it's worth noting that
aspects of her worldview are found on the liberal left as well as the liberal right - not least
amongst some of the much admired pontiffs of atheism.
One wonders about her end - not just as a failing of her philosophy on a personal level, but
at the (I presume) lack of support from admirers, who presumably took her at her word.
I can muster a bit of compassion for an individual probably distorted by living under the opposite
horrors of communism, but her ideas are, as I say, sickening.
National Socialism had nothing to do with the "far left". The "socialism in the name was a misnomer.
Its opponents in Germany were the SPD, Communist Party and other smaller left wing parties. It
was a party largely funded and backed by business interests and the middle and upper middle classes.
The first worthwhile article by Jonathan for a very long time. One has to be grateful! Of course
now that Trump and "defender of the innocent" Tillerson have been adopted by the neocons Ayn Rand
will be replaced by Leo Strauss as their main source of inspiration. Regime change and the spread
of democracy will continue unabated. Perpetual war is now compulsory. Our media will play it part
in every twist and turn - always on the side of the regime changers.
Design by committee. I sat in the gallery watching Bristol Planning Committee decide whether to
grant permission to Pero's Bridge in Bristol in the mid 90's. A design that won in an architecture
competition. The Tory said 'I cannot permit this bridge, as I may break the heel of my shoe whilst
crossing'. The Labour said 'We like it, mostly because you don't, but we'd rather it were red'.
The Leader said, as the decision was in deadlock, 'Let us decide on the design alone and not a
design by committee...approved'.
The most boring, stilted, artificial, self-important, senseless prose I ever read, with no connection
to real living human experience, with all the doubts, searching for connexions, human solidarity
which make us what we are as a species.
An accounting textbook is more fun.
No wonder her only fans are to be found nowadays amongst the illiterate Republican fringe whose
only firm belief is a hate and distrust of "guv'mint".
It's no mystery why these modern figures like Ayn Rand. She basically said it was right & natural
for people like them to rule the world and treat the little people like dirt.
Rand heroes think they're smarter than everyone else, but for some wierd reason, other people
do not bow down to them. Go figure. Hence, they have to distance themselves from society to perform
their genius works. An appealing self-image for nerds, which accounts for the Silicones; artists,
which accounts for the 'anti-art' art movement; and super-appealing to everyone who has struck
it rich, cause it justifies everything they did. Thus, the Donald saw himself as a Roarkian figure,
fighting with the authorities to allow him to choose who should live in his Manhattan slum apartments.
Oblivious to the fact that the real hero, Roark, would have looked past the colour of the prospective
tenant's skin, and respected them for their achievements. This will be his downfall, and the downfall
of every despot who misunderstands the mind-altering effects of the binary system. wtf?
"Then I think I like the Carpenter best" cried Alice.
"Contrariwise" said Tweedledum, " The Carpenter, may have cried , but he ate far more oysters
than the Walrus". ( a rough approximation I believe of the cooperation/individualism debate in
Alice written before it all get played out in the 20th century. )
Being the opposite of Rand I feel the market cannot be trusted. And now that the world is so over-populated
Randism can only bring about mass suffering.
Nasty and irresponsible. A world without conscience, without heart.
One speaks a lot about how her ideas have harmed people. Think too of the immense damage her
ideas has had for our climate, animal extinction and environment. Irreparable.
By the way, to call her a philosopher is pushing it, since she didn't care of most great thinkers.
Hilariously simplistic take on art too.
The most boring, stilted, pompous, self-important, empty prose I ever attempted to read. An accounting
textbook would be positively amusing compared to AR.
Not surprised when I find who her current audience is made of. Right-wing "Republicans" (Lincoln,
T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower would not recognise them) whose only ideology is "Government is evil".
Let's be frank here government is mostly evil. None of these dodgy wars would be going on nor
would they be permanently spying on us. Randists want to be the ones in government but they want
to limit the benefits they consider to be the elites ie themselves.
Ironic that a woman would originate such a misogynistic world view entirely free of mothers or
children. Presumably the lazy ignorant female underlings of Gault et Alia were somehow also going
to spawn the next generation of uber-men to carry her Railroads etc past the life spans of their
magnificent leaders, but doing this without the aid of any schools or medical care. Now that's
a miracle!
Ironic that a woman would originate such a misogynistic world view entirely free of mothers
or children. Presumably the lazy ignorant female underlings of Gault et Alia were somehow also
going to spawn the next generation of uber-men to carry her Railroads etc past the life spans
of their magnificent leaders, but doing this without the aid of any schools or medical care.
Now that's a miracle!
Perhaps misogyny is not only mens' fault and the other 51% of the population should bear some
responsibility for it. Weird.
Anyone who has a nice word to say about this woman should be disqualified from office. Selfishness
is not good or natural, it is poisonous and goes against the whole evolutionary trend of our species.
If selfishness were natural, there'd be no one here on the planet.
Three points here.
1. Cooperative behaviour is rare in animals.
2. We are animals.
3. What makes you think we will be here for much longer. Our time on the planet has been a blip
in the history of the world. Even if we last another 10k years we will still have been a blip.
If you read any Rand then it's not too hard to discern that she was as mad as a box of frogs.
I do wonder what excuse some of today's politicians have for believing her turgid spouting.
Funny how objectivists want to keep the police and army. They know that is the only way they can
hold what they have taken. With violence and fear. Says a lot that does.
Capitalism rewards assholes with wealth and power.
Give your head a shake.. the irony is Randists want to keep those gov't institutions (police,army)
that can be used to protect their wealth.. convebiently ignoring that this is gov't interference.
You telling me that socialism wants to get rid of the police and army? Don't be a hypocrite.
I don't think you understand. mikkden has pointed out the hyprocrisy of these small state-ists
which is that they want to keep the police and army of the state to control the populace and keep
their vast wealth safe. So, the like the state when it suits them.
Socialists aren't small state-ists, so there is no hypocrisy in wanting to keep police and
army.
Having managed to get through Atlas Shrugged a few years ago I can see how she made certain useful
observations on how life really works but she took it WAY too far.
It's quite remarkable how so many influential people have quite such reverence for her one-dimensional
philosophy.
What a nasty piece of work. Imagine having her as a neighbor. She renounced the benefits of the
collective but took full advantage of it when she found work fresh off the boat among her fellow
emigrés in Hollywood.
Reading these comments and the article itself, I am wondering whether anyone (including the author
of the article) actually read Fountainhead and if they did whether they read it carefully. First
of all, the novel states that the worst kind of second-hander is a man who goes after power --
a politician for example. How could Trump love a book that plainly states he is despicable? Second
of all -- selfish man for Rand is not a person who uses others in any way, it is a self-sufficient
person who doesn't need others. (a bit far-fetched, I agree, but idealistic, rather than deplorable)
Third of all, the main character explicitly says he could die for another character in the book,
but he would not live for them -- that is pretty altruistic. He sets his own standards, chooses
what to do, what to believe, he is a supreme individualist. In conclusion, Ayn Rand's book is
in many places far-fetched, unrealistic and rigid, but its basis is pure idealism and humane individualism,
it is full of breath-taking descriptions and gives you a lot of food for thought.
And if you could prove him wrong he'd be interested to hear the argument. So many intellectuals
miss the basic truth that they are merely using their intellect to shore up tribal and prejudicial
tropes.
At least Hitchens did some original thinking as well as being widely read.
So many intellectuals miss the basic truth that they are merely using their intellect to
shore up tribal and prejudicial tropes.
Haha - nice line. I think that is more true with specialists as they tend to be less complete.
Not really a fan of either Hitchens as they both have/had rather limited perspectives. They
have a set framework within which they operate but if someone brings up a point outside that framework
they can't really deal with it so end up saying something along the lines of "what you are actually
arguing for is....." in a desperate attempt to regain control. They are exquisitely good at controlling
that ground mind you and occasionally they do come out with gems.
Who the fuck approved this for the curriculum? Why isn't it being challenged? Rand was a nutcase,
the greatest irony of her warped existence being that she died, being cared for in a state funded
nursing home at the expense of taxpayers.
Telling people what they want to hear is hardly rocket science and has a long history. The dominance
of male over female, the divine right of kings...and so on.
I have always instinctively distrusted anyone who calls themselves a libertarian. It sounds all
grand and clever, but in practice, it's a laissez faire philosophy that amounts to little more
than giving the people who espouses it free rein to do whatever the hell they like, no matter
how destructive to others, so long as it's not illegal, they will always remind you.
I loved Matt Taibbi's takedown in Griftopia of Ayn Rand, and I highly recommend that book.
I have never read any of her works and now won't. Her philosophy sounds simplistic and rather
amoral. Shocking to think such influential people think all the answers can be found in one philosophy,
one writer. Again simplistic.
Well with the success of Silicon Valley and the level of voluntary contributions to charity higher
then some countries GDPs, higher then any other country, being the US. I would say it is working.
The problem with left side politics is that you are happy to put things on the credit card for
moral reasons, but ignore the future debt that is being placed down on other generations, so loses
any moral high ground.
Silicon Valley was the spin off from the military complex - most of the original companies made
a fortune developing technologies for the military or enjoying the spin off inventions
There's a nasty anti-semitic bent to the sheer intensity of people's hatred to Ayn Rand. It's
as if she personifies the other, the convenient scapegoat, the force behind the scenes shaping
the world. That's how many people look on Jews on account of their high intelligence and eagerness
to engage with cultural/intellectual pursuits. (Yes yes yes I know the stereotype isn't always
right: no doubt there exist Jewish people who are dumb as a box of rocks, philistine and uncultured
- I just haven't met them yet. Fine, I concede it, I concede it!)
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Ayn Rand was an individualist. She saw first hand
what collectivism can do. Did she overshoot in the opposite direction? Sure, maybe that case can
be made. Perhaps she neglected to see the value in teamwork, though the evidence isn't all that
powerful. I think she pretty much 'got it' that things like orchestras and sports teams aren't
the worst things in the world!
What appeals to me about her writing is just how deeply compassionate it is. "The Fountainhead"
is all about the kind of personal artistic integrity that ought to appeal to many Guardian readers,
especially if you ever read the cultural reviews section. Essentially Howard Roark is like an
Arnold Schoenberg being asked to 'put more tunes in'. He's never prepared to incorporate mock
Greek pillars and suchlike into his architectural designs and he insists on standing by the vision
and originality of his work. This means he earns his living breaking rocks in a quarry instead
of drawing pictures he can't support.
Come on what's not to like about that?
Then there's the newspaper magnate Gail Wynand who's secretly just as perceptive and sensitive
as Roark but chose the compromise: print what they want, not what you know is right. It was the
end of him. It's glorious and incredibly moving.
Now fair enough Guardian readers won't like the ugly face of Elsworth Toohey, but even if you
think it's an unfair caricature, at the very least it highlights the dangers of being a 'public
intellectual'. Many here, especially in light of Syria, could learn a thing or two about that.
Come on I dare you, give "The Fountainhead" a go. She's a damn novel writer. She has nothing
to do with Donald bloody Trump, in fact I daresay she'd despise the little arsehole as much as
I do.
No there is nothing antisemitic in despising Ayn Rand. I despised her from 30 pages into "Atlas
Shrugged" when I was twenty-one, a long time ago, and never realized she was Jewish until I saw
your comment. I daresay most people don't know that either. I wondered why I kept seeing her books
in second-hand bookshops but soon found out. What a load of garbage. Her grasp of history and
fact and reality is non-existent, so her conclusions and ideas drawn from them are ludicrous.
Her novel writing was peripheral to her overall output. Her entire "philosophy" was a backwards
construction from an ideological position: "These are my conclusions and these are the facts I
draw from them". As others here have noted, she was barking mad. She believed in a dog-eat-dog
society, but in such a situation you end up with a few grossly fat dogs which then starve to death.
I loved Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead as a kid, but it's antihistoricism, its sense that
society owes me something for being alive, that I am ultimately an island unto myself, struck
me as monochromatic, simplistic, and fundamentally antihuman in the end. I still remember the
feeling it gave me though. More like science fiction, a spiritual kind of science fiction with
cardboard characters and cardboard emotions, but man, it was a thrill. Oh well, gotta grow up
sometime.
An homophobic white supremacist worshipped by right wingers!! What are the odds? Considering she
spent her latter years on social security it shows the usual two faced attitude of the right wingers.
Unreflective people make the mistake of thinking Libertarianism is just "live and let live" and
haven't recognized it's very dark side. It's filled with inherent contradictions and is very much
a case study in bad religion.
As always, those who believe in the infallible altruism of the state and its agents confuse not
wanting the state to do something with not wanting it to be done by anyone.
But but but but without government who'd build the roads! Yeah cos people would be standing
hungry over here and Tesco would be stood over here scratching their head.
Nobody's gloating that she died, leave your emotional tricks at home. What I'm bemused about is
that Rand took from the big bad Government in her later years. She was a hypocrite, pure and simple.
There is a pleasant irony in her receiving state benefits, no doubt; it goes to show how practical
the philosophy she espoused actually is. That she died? Everyone dies eventually.
No - they're just pointing out that she was a godawful hypocrite - and her supplicants are deluded
or devious...
If she's been on the dole & died, but had been a decent person, no-one would be having a pop at
her...
However, she was a bad writer who just made selfish rich folks think they were better than the
rest of us; that's why her 'works' are regarded by thinking people as toxic waste.....
Rand's "ideal man" sounds a bit like the genius concept of the 19th century (Nietzsche et al.)
transferred from the realm of art to the field of money making.
I grew up in the Soviet Union, in much more vegetarian times, than 1920s, but still we all lived
in poverty, and the lack of basic goods and services was absolutely humiliating.
Having that experience it is only natural that I fully share contempt for the state as a mechanism
for ensuring equality and economic prosperity.
LMAO!!! Ayn Rand was a terrible author with no ideas other than "be selfish"; she wrote
economics for kindergartners. She was also a hypocrite because she accepted Social Security payments
in her old age. The only thing I like about Ayn Rand is that she was an atheist.
"... Ignoring Rand's evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John Galt?" and "Rand was right". Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has "distilled vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose". She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress. ..."
"... Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed, secondhand, by people who have never read it. ..."
"... It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitized by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments. ..."
Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers
into their doormats
It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness,
it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor
deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly
and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by
Ayn Rand , who died 30 years
ago today, has never been more popular or influential.
Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels
(such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy
she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing,
she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse"
and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts
and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health
or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.
Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention
in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays
as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses.
It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats,
John Galt .
The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness.
Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers
in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for instance, was a teacher who taught
children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children;
one was a housewife "who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing".
Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed.
Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in
his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left:
a demigod at the head of a chiliastic
cult. Almost one third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and
it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year.
Ignoring Rand's evangelical atheism,
the Tea Party movement
has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John
Galt?" and "Rand was right". Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has "distilled
vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose". She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters
Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress.
Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed, secondhand, by people who have never read
it. I believe it is making itself felt on this side of the Atlantic: in the clamorous new demands
to remove the 50p tax band for the very rich, for instance; or among the sneering, jeering bloggers
who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator, mocking compassion and empathy, attacking efforts
to make the word a kinder place.
It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is
crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are
parasitized by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments.
It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from a
withdrawal of government. But such is the degree of misinformation which saturates this movement
and so prevalent in the US is Willy Loman syndrome (the gulf between reality and expectations) that
millions blithely volunteer themselves as billionaires' doormats. I wonder how many would continue
to worship at the shrine of
Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social
security. She had railed furiously against both programmes, as they represented everything she despised
about the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill health.
But they have a still more powerful reason to reject her philosophy: as Adam Curtis's BBC documentary
showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was
Alan Greenspan , former
head of the US Federal Reserve. Among the essays he wrote for Rand were those published in a book
he co-edited with her called
Capitalism:
the Unknown Ideal . Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government.
There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as "the
'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking is the unexcelled protector
of the consumer". As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they
will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a "superlatively moral
system".
Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, cutting taxes for the
rich, repealing the laws constraining banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives
trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already documented, but Weiss shows
that in the US, Greenspan has successfully airbrushed history.
Despite the many years he spent at her side, despite his previous admission that it was Rand who
persuaded him that "capitalism is not only efficient and practical but also moral", he mentioned
her in his memoirs only to suggest that it was a youthful indiscretion – and this, it seems, is now
the official version. Weiss presents powerful evidence that even today Greenspan remains her loyal
disciple, having renounced his partial admission of failure to Congress.
Saturated in her philosophy, the new right on both sides of the Atlantic continues to demand the
rollback of the state, even as the wreckage of that policy lies all around. The poor go down, the
ultra-rich survive and prosper. Ayn Rand would have approved.
"... But for some, objectivism stuck. Perhaps her most significant early follower was Alan Greenspan , later to serve as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for 19 years. In the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the Collective, and he would be among the mourners at her funeral in 1982 , where one floral wreath was fashioned into that same 6ft dollar sign, now understood to be the logo of Randism. ..."
"... Put more baldly, the reason why Republicans and British Conservatives started giving each other copies of Atlas Shrugged in the 80s was that Rand seemed to grant intellectual heft to the prevailing ethos of the time. Her insistence on the "morality of rational self-interest" and "the virtue of selfishness" sounded like an upmarket version of the slogan, derived from Oliver Stone's Wall Street, that defined the era: greed is good . Rand was Gordon Gekko with A-levels. ..."
"... In that context, it seemed only natural that one of the success stories of the 2012 presidential campaign was a bid for the Republican nomination by the ultra-libertarian and Rand-admiring Texas congressman -> Ron Paul , father of Senator Rand Paul, whose insurgent movement was a forerunner for much of what would unfold in 2016. Paul offered a radical downsizing of the federal government. Like Ayn Rand, he believed the state's role should be limited to providing an army, a police force, a court system – and not much else. ..."
"... So why does Trump claim to be inspired by her? The answer, surely, is that Rand lionises the alpha male capitalist entrepreneur, the man of action who towers over the little people and the pettifogging bureaucrats – and gets things done. As Jennifer Burns puts it: "For a long time, she has been beloved by disruptors, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, people who see themselves as shaping the future, taking risky bets, moving out in front of everyone else, relying only on their own instincts, intuition and knowledge, and going against the grain." ..."
"... Among these new masters of the universe, the Rand influence is manifest less in party political libertarianism than in a single-minded determination to follow a personal vision, regardless of the impact. No wonder the tech companies don't mind destroying, say, the taxi business or the traditional news media. Such concerns are beneath the young, powerful men at the top: even to listen to such concerns would be to betray the singularity of their own pure vision. It would be to break Rand's golden rule, by which the visionary must never sacrifice himself to others. ..."
"... So Rand, dead 35 years, lives again, her hand guiding the rulers of our age in both Washington and San Francisco. Hers is an ideology that denounces altruism, elevates individualism into a faith and gives a spurious moral licence to raw selfishness. That it is having a moment now is no shock. Such an ideology will find a ready audience for as long as there are human beings who feel the rush of greed and the lure of unchecked power, longing to succumb to both without guilt. Which is to say: for ever. ..."
As they plough through their GCSE revision, UK students planning to take politics A-level in the
autumn can comfort themselves with this thought: come September, they will be studying one thinker
who does not belong in the dusty archives of ancient political theory but is achingly on trend. For
the
curriculum includes a new addition: the work of
Ayn Rand .
It is a timely decision because Rand, who died in 1982 and was alternately ridiculed and revered
throughout her lifetime, is having a moment. Long the poster girl of a particularly hardcore brand
of free-market fundamentalism – the advocate of a philosophy she called "
the virtue of selfishness
" – Rand has always had acolytes in the conservative political classes. The Republican speaker
of the US House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, is so committed a Randian, he was famous for
giving every new member of his staff a copy of Rand's gargantuan novel,
Atlas Shrugged (along with Freidrich Hayek's
Road to Serfdom ). The story, oft-repeated, that his colleague in the US Senate,
Rand Paul , owes his first
name to his father Ron's adulation of Ayn (it rhymes with "mine") turns out to be apocryphal, but
Paul describes himself as a
fan all the same .
Not to be left out, Britain's small-staters have devised their own ways of worshipping at the
shrine of Ayn. Communities secretary Sajid Javid reads the courtroom scene in Rand's
The Fountainhead
twice a year and has done so throughout his adult life. As a student, he read that bit aloud to the
woman who is now his wife, though the exercise proved to be a one-off. As Javid
recently confessed to the Spectator , she told him that if he tried that again, he would get
dumped. Meanwhile, Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP many see as the intellectual architect of Brexit,
keeps a photograph
of Rand on his Brussels desk .
So the devotion of Toryboys, in both their UK and US incarnations, is not new. But Rand's philosophy
of rugged, uncompromising individualism – of contempt for both the state and the lazy, conformist
world of the corporate boardroom - now has a follower in the White House. What is more, there is
a new legion of devotees, one whose influence over our daily lives dwarfs that of most politicians.
They are the titans of tech.
So who is this new entrant on the A-level syllabus, the woman hailed by one biographer as the
goddess of the market? Born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in 1905 in St Petersburg, Russia, she saw
her father impoverished and her family driven to the brink of starvation by the Soviet revolution,
an experience that forged her contempt for all notions of the collective good and, especially, for
the state as a mechanism for ensuring equality.
An obsessive cinemagoer, she fled to the US in 1926, swiftly making her way to Hollywood. She
paid her way through a series of odd jobs, including a stint in the costume department of RKO Pictures,
and landed a role as an extra in Cecil B DeMille's The King of Kings. But writing was her passion.
Broadway plays and movie scripts followed, until the breakthrough came with a novel: The Fountainhead.
Published in 1943, it tells the story of Howard Roark, an architect dedicated to the pursuit of
his own vision – a man who would rather see his buildings dynamited than compromise on the perfection
of his designs. All around him are mediocrities, representing either the dead hand of the state,
bureaucrats serving some notional collective good, or "second handers" – corporate parasites who
profit from the work and vision of others.
Then, in 1957, came Atlas Shrugged, whose
Penguin Classic
edition stretches to 1,184 pages. Here Roark gives way to John Galt, another capitalist genius,
who leads a strike by the "men of talent" and drive, thereby depriving society of "the motor of the
world".
In those novels, and in the essays and lectures she turned to afterwards, Rand expounded – at
great and repetitive length – her philosophy, soon to be taught to A-level students alongside Hobbes
and Burke. Objectivism, she called it, distilled by her as the belief that "man exists for his own
sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice
himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself". She had lots to say about everything else too
– an avowed atheist, she was dismissive of any knowledge that was not rooted in what you could see
in front of your eyes. She had no patience for "instinct" or "'intuition' or any form of 'just knowing'".
The Fountainhead was serially rejected and published to ambivalent reviews, but it became a word-of-mouth
hit. Over the coming years, a cult following arose around Rand (as well as something very close to
an actual cult among her inner circle, known, no doubt ironically, as the Collective). Her works
struck a chord with a particular kind of reader: adolescent, male and thirsting for an ideology brimming
with moral certainty. As
the New Yorker
said in 2009 : "Most readers make their first and last trip to Galt's Gulch – the hidden-valley
paradise of born-again capitalists featured in Atlas Shrugged, its solid-gold dollar sign standing
like a maypole – sometime between leaving Middle-earth and packing for college."
But for some, objectivism stuck. Perhaps her most significant early follower was
Alan Greenspan
, later to serve as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for 19 years. In the 1950s, Greenspan was
one of the Collective, and he would be
among the mourners at her funeral in 1982 , where one floral wreath was fashioned into that same
6ft dollar sign, now understood to be the logo of Randism.
Greenspan is the link between the original Rand cult and what we might think of as the second
age of Rand: the Thatcher-Reagan years, when the laissez-faire, free-market philosophy went from
the crankish obsession of rightwing economists to the governing credo of Anglo-American capitalism.
Greenspan, appointed as the US's central banker by Ronald Reagan in 1987, firmly believed that market
forces, unimpeded, were the best mechanism for the management and distribution of a society's resources.
That view – which Greenspan would
rethink after the crash of 2008-9 – rested on the assumption that economic actors behave rationally,
always acting in their own self-interest. The primacy of self-interest, rather than altruism or any
other nonmaterial motive, was, of course, a central tenet of Randian thought.
Put more baldly, the reason why Republicans and British Conservatives started giving each other
copies of Atlas Shrugged in the 80s was that Rand seemed to grant intellectual heft to the prevailing
ethos of the time. Her insistence on the "morality of rational self-interest" and "the virtue of
selfishness" sounded like an upmarket version of the slogan, derived from Oliver Stone's Wall Street,
that defined the era: greed
is good . Rand was Gordon Gekko with A-levels.
The third age of Rand came with the financial crash and the presidency of Barack Obama that followed.
Spooked by the fear that Obama was bent on expanding the state, the Tea Party and others returned
to the old-time religion of rolling back government. As
Rand biographer Jennifer Burns told Quartz : "In moments of liberal dominance, people turn to
her because they see Atlas Shrugged as a prophecy as to what's going to happen if the government
is given too much power."
In that context, it seemed only natural that one of the success stories of the 2012 presidential
campaign was a bid for the Republican nomination by the ultra-libertarian and Rand-admiring Texas
congressman -> Ron Paul
, father of Senator Rand Paul, whose insurgent movement was a forerunner for much of what would unfold
in 2016. Paul offered a radical downsizing of the federal government. Like Ayn Rand, he believed
the state's role should be limited to providing an army, a police force, a court system – and not
much else.
But Rand presented a problem for US Republicans otherwise keen to embrace her legacy. She was
a devout atheist, withering in her disdain for the nonobjectivist mysticism of religion. Yet, inside
the Republican party, those with libertarian leanings have only been able to make headway by riding
pillion with social conservatives and, specifically, white evangelical Christians. The dilemma was
embodied by Paul Ryan , named as Mitt Romney's running mate in the 2012 contest. Ryan moved fast
to play down the Rand influence, preferring to say his philosophy was inspired by St Thomas Aquinas.
Confessions of a recovering Objectivist Victoria Bekiempis Victoria Bekiempis: For a time,
I was a devotee of Ayn Rand's ideas. Now I see what a pernicious philosophy rational egoism is
– and how dumb! Read more
What of the current moment, shaping up to be the fourth age of Rand? The Randian politicians are
still in place: Ryan is now boosted by a
cabinet crammed with objectivists . Secretary of state Rex Tillerson named Atlas Shrugged as
his favourite book, while Donald Trump's first choice (later dropped) as labor secretary, Andy Puzder,
is the CEO of a restaurant chain owned by Roark Capital Group – a private equity fund named after
the hero of The Fountainhead. CIA director Mike Pompeo is another conservative who says Atlas Shrugged
"really had an impact on me".
Of course, this merely makes these men like their boss. Trump is notoriously no reader of books:
he has only ever spoken about liking three works of fiction. But, inevitably, one of them was The
Fountainhead. "It relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions. That book relates to ...
everything,"
he said last year .
Rand scholars find this affinity of Trump's puzzling. Not least because Trump's offer to the electorate
in 2016 was not a promise of an unfettered free market. It was a pledge to make the US government
an active meddler in the market, negotiating trade deals, bringing back jobs. His public bullying
of big companies – pressing Ford or the air-conditioner manufacturer Carrier to keep their factories
in the US – was precisely the kind of big government intrusion upon the natural rhythms of capitalism
that appalled Rand.
So why does Trump claim to be inspired by her? The answer, surely, is that Rand lionises the alpha
male capitalist entrepreneur, the man of action who towers over the little people and the pettifogging
bureaucrats – and gets things done. As Jennifer Burns puts it: "For a long time, she has been beloved
by disruptors, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, people who see themselves as shaping the future,
taking risky bets, moving out in front of everyone else, relying only on their own instincts, intuition
and knowledge, and going against the grain."
Which brings us to the new wave of Randians, outside both politics and conventional conservatism.
They are the princes of Silicon Valley, the masters of the start-up, a cadre of young Roarks and
Galts, driven by their own genius to remake the world and damn the consequences.
So it should be no surprise that when Vanity Fair
surveyed these tycoons of the digital age , many of them pointed to a single guiding star. Rand,
the magazine suggested, might just be "the most influential figure in the industry". When the CEO
of Uber, Travis Kalanick, had to choose an avatar for his Twitter account in 2015, he opted for the
cover of The Fountainhead. Peter Thiel, Facebook's first major investor and a rare example of a man
who straddles both Silicon Valley and Trumpworld, is a Randian. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs is said by
his Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, to have regarded Atlas Shrugged as one of his "guides in life".
Among these new masters of the universe, the Rand influence is manifest less in party political
libertarianism than in a single-minded determination to follow a personal vision, regardless of the
impact. No wonder the tech companies don't mind destroying, say, the taxi business or the traditional
news media. Such concerns are beneath the young, powerful men at the top: even to listen to such
concerns would be to betray the singularity of their own pure vision. It would be to break Rand's
golden rule, by which the visionary must never sacrifice himself to others.
So Rand, dead 35 years, lives again, her hand guiding the rulers of our age in both Washington
and San Francisco. Hers is an ideology that denounces altruism, elevates individualism into a faith
and gives a spurious moral licence to raw selfishness. That it is having a moment now is no shock.
Such an ideology will find a ready audience for as long as there are human beings who feel the rush
of greed and the lure of unchecked power, longing to succumb to both without guilt. Which is to say:
for ever.
axelprod
Adam Curtis followed the thread from Rand and Greenspan to the silicon valley messiahs in
All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace, from 2011. Well worth a watch.
John Lemony Lemon
A loon who spent her life trying to f*ck the poor over and then, in a delicious bit of
irony, used social security in her later years.
Gelion -> John Lemony Lemon 4d ago
Exactly. A complete fraud, as are a lot of Silicon Valley's businesses, like Uber, and
other "disruptors" who only work because they breach regulations.
Nice to see Italy banning Uber recently.
krissywilson87 -> John Lemony Lemon 4d ago
A total intellectual nonentity whose constant description as a "philosopher" is a total
insult to philosophers.
Ayn Rand's books are about as "philosophical" as a Mills & Boon novel.
Only in the anti-intellectual mire of right-wing America could she be considered some sort of
visionary or intellectual.
Westmorlandia -> krissywilson87 4d ago
She just tells people what they want to hear. That passes for wisdom for many.
itz4kix -> John Lemony Lemon 4d ago
A loon who spent her life trying to fuck the poor
the essence of which was her assertion that the poor are of no-ones concern but their own.
That said: her rise was largely due to her having written a simple antithesis of communism &
thereafter selling it to the 'we-hate-anything-that-could-be-called-socialist' US.
btw: many Labour voters (who'd consider voting UKIP) would be unpleasantly surprised at how
closely Farage is aligned to Rand's socioeconomic perspective (i.e. Objectivism). E.G. flat
rate or two tier tax system (that disproportionately favours the wealthy), no minimum wage no
socialised NHS, libraries etc & market driven policies.............
BertieBucket -> CapeOfGoodHopes 4d ago
Because it makes her a prime hypocrit. It's piss easy to be against social healthcare when
you're filthy rich and don't need it, the acid test is are you still against it if you become
poor. If the answer is still yes, then you can be said to have integrity. If you avail
yourself to the very social healthcare you spent your wealthy years denouncing, you're a
filthy hypocrit whose word isn't worth taking.
The president has just swaggered his way into the single most complex civil war in living
memory – and he does so with little credibility or legitimacy
It may be hard to believe, but Donald Trump is even more simplistic than George W Bush in matters
of war. George W Bush enjoyed all the certainty of a very simple man: you were either with us or
against us, good or evil, marching for democracy or plotting terrorist attacks.
Yet Donald Trump manages to make Bush look like Baron von Metternich. He just launched military strikes
against a brutal Syrian regime he used to describe as "NOT our problem".
Yes, Donald Trump is a great big bag of contradictions and he just swaggered his way into the
single most complex civil war in living memory – a war that is even more complicated than raising
a high-rise hotel in a foreign capital.
At least Bush took more than a year after 9/11 before he invaded Iraq. Trump hasn't reached the 100-day
mark and he's already walking into his own quagmire.
Going from dangerous to lethal - he's graduated to blindly lobbing bombs at foreign countries
for reasons he doesn't fully understand and causing consequences he'll never comprehend.
Helping to further destabilise one of the most dangerous regions in terms of international terrorism
is a good thing? If Assad is toppled today the people placed to fill the vacuum are some of the
most abhorrent Wahhabist nutters you could imagine. The secular rebels such as they were have
either been killed or surpassed in power and influence, several years ago by now. Atrocities committed
by Assad need to be dealt with by international courts following the managed conclusion of the
war.
What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that
hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging
the suffering of the Syrian people.
I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding
that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot
say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly
haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that
I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would
gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks?
That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
"... Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon stripped of national security council role Tuesday memorandum also restores traditional roles on council of chairman of joint chiefs of staff and director of national intelligence ..."
"... A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former head of the rightwing Breitbart News. ..."
"... When officials released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall. ..."
8 April 2017 07.00 EDT Last modified on Saturday 8 April 2017 17.01 EDT
The sun shone on Donald Trump's debut in the rose garden. As reporters filed in for the time honoured
White House tradition, the president's aide Omarosa Manigault stood in the Palm Room, speaking urgently
into her phone. Vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Rex Tillerson shared a joke on the
front row. And the president's senior adviser and son-in-law, ->
Jared Kushner , exuded
confidence, nodding and smiling at a fellow guest as he took his place.
But as Trump held a joint press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, ->
denouncing a chemical weapons attack on children in Syria that would lead to a US missile strike
a day later, there was a glaring absence. Chief strategist Steve Bannon, mocked by Trump's critics
as "President Bannon" on Twitter, had lost his place in the sun.
A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former
head of the rightwing Breitbart News. In the past week there were indications that the latter,
->
who once declared himself "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors", could be heading for
a fall like Cromwell's, albeit without the gore that accompanied the English minister's violent end.
While Kushner paid a surprise visit to Iraq, beating Tillerson to the photo opps aboard a military
helicopter, Bannon was unceremoniously demoted from the national security council (NSC).
When officials
released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at
the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall.
Keeper of the flame for the isolationist "America first" doctrine, a backlash against the neocons' invasion of Iraq and other
US attempts to meddle in world affairs. A month ago the ex-head of Breitbart News was rumoured to be the second most powerful
man in the world. But last week Bannon, left, was removed from the National Security Council at McMaster's behest.
Mike Cernovich, blogger
A peddler of conspiracy theories said to be influential with the administration, he describes himself as "new right". Last
week Trump's son, Donald Jr, tweeted: "In a long gone time of unbiased journalism he'd win the Pulitzer." But Cernovich has promoted
the hashtag #SyriaHoax and said: "This is appalling really. This is unbelievable.
This is not what we voted for. This is definitely not what we voted for ."
Ann Coulter, author and broadcaster
The author of In Trump We Trust and tireless media champion of the president expressed bitter disappointment to her
1.46m Twitter followers. She posted: "Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies &
creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV."
Rand Paul, senator for Kentucky
The libertarian senator played golf with Trump last weekend and appeared to be forming an unlikely alliance over allegations
of surveillance by the Obama administration.
But he told CNN on Saturday: "He really, clearly ran on the Iraq war was a mistake, regime change hasn't worked, and that involving
ourselves in civil wars throughout the world is really not the job of America's foreign policy.
"Some will say maybe this is an exception to the rule, and I hope frankly that this is an exception, that he won't believe
that we can actually solve the Syria war militarily."
"... In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently do US actions like this help ISIS? ..."
"... Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes? ..."
"... And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US? ..."
"... American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep! ..."
"... The world does not need another full scale war! ..."
"... This last bombing is very much in line with Trump steaks and Trump vodka, just a hell of a lot uglier. ..."
"... And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*. ..."
"... Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. ..."
"... Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence, that Trump vindicated his action on. ..."
"... Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence, that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid. ..."
"... Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency at home. ..."
"... Trump is doing exactly what the Establishment has told him to do. ..."
"... I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind it. How do they benefit? ..."
"... I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians. ..."
"... But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda. ..."
"... And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve. ..."
"... We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting. ..."
"... The US is above international law. Plus they have just destroyed the crime scene. ..."
"... In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime, to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between. ..."
"... But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him? ..."
"... Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been framed. Only evidence can clear this up. ..."
"... The absolute worst aspect of all, and we do know this for sure, is that the bastard claims god is his guide. ..."
"... As he escalates on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, which is desperately in need of profit and growth. ..."
"... Liberals want the Wahhabis to be in charge. ..."
"... Dec 2016 - Erdogan confirms Turkey has evidence that the US coalition is supporting ISIS and rebels in Syria ..."
"... It almost seems too perfect doesn't it? Could be another false flag.. ..."
"... America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity - anywhere. ..."
"... It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military intervention without evidence or legality. ..."
"... There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side. ..."
"... A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although with modern munitions that seems unlikely. ..."
"... Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels", or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America created ISIS. ..."
"... Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly, Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has been regarding acts of war in the past few decades. ..."
"... An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might see one or the other interesting picture or video this year. ..."
"... Who's warmonger now? ..."
"... A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this. ..."
"... With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people, the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes. ..."
"... According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)... ..."
"... Tomahawk diplomacy ..."
"... IMO there are only two options now. ..."
"... Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over the brink, or ..."
"... He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't feel that important anymore ..."
"... The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up. ..."
"... Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself . ..."
"... Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a colt to his head. ..."
"... BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase? If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX? Will the NRA get the "message"? Rattel , 7 Apr 2017 09:48 So the answer to the question 'Cui bono' appears to be Donald Trump. ..."
"... Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! ..."
"... Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump is to manipulate. ..."
"... "Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account. "The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides." Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong? beren56 , 7 Apr 2017 09:50 Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America ..."
"... As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power. ..."
"... ''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012. ..."
"... "Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is that the United States seems always to have only one solution to war: make more war. " ..."
"... In my youth a frequent moniker said "fighting for peace is like fu.king for virginity" - it hasn't changed ..."
You would hope that our "independent" media might ask some important questions, rather than
simply swallow the narrative our government's feed them...
For instance, where is the evidence that the Syrian regime did this? Only on Wednesday the
UN stated that it could not say with any certainty that the chemicals were delivered by air.
Indeed the UN investigation has barely started, so if the US have information that Assad did
this surely they should present it?
What about motive, why would Assad who everyone agrees is on the brink of winning this war
give the US a reason to intervene against him? Besides didn't we also oversee the distruction
of his chemical weapons stockpile 4 years ago?
We know ISIS have chemical weapons because our ally Turkey has let them import them over their
border.
Also, even if we ignore the legality of last night's strike, what has it done to help the situation
in Syria?
In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region
sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently
do US actions like this help ISIS?
I don't know about anyone else but it is pretty standard for me that when someone is accused
of something I look for the evidence and motives. It seems unfortunately that our media have long
stopped asking any difficult questions, as we sleepwalk into yet another middle eastern war...
The number of countries not bombed by the USA grows smaller all the time. It is a foreign policy
based on high explosives - mindless, cruel and bound to create more enemies.
What the hell exactly is the message? Don't use chemical weapons on the beautiful babies, stick
to blowing them to pieces and mutilating them with conventional weapons like civilized people?
Asking again: where is the toxic chemical cloud from the airbase the US attacked overnight that
was allegedly the base from where chemical air raids were launched and thus presumably where the
toxic material was in storage?
Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes?
There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including
children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot.
Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.
Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical
weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?
And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for
more strikes from the US?
Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states
turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!
American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first
place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources
that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!
And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she
wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White
House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*.
International laws are ignored, pretexts hastily fabricated (did you notice they don't pay
so much attention to detail anymore?) and people die to be used as an excuse for yet another war
crime in the perpetual quest for more and more and more money.
*If they refuse, they are shown the footage of Kennedy assassination taken from a yet unseen
angle (RIP Bill Hicks).
Islamic state takes advantage of US attack on government to storm western Palmyra
BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:40 A.M.) – Not long after the U.S. attacked the Shayrat Airbase in eastern
Homs, the Islamic State (ISIL) launched two separate attacks on the Syrian Arab Army's (SAA) defenses
in the Palmyra.
I struggle to see why bombs are almost universally accepted way of solving foreign problems, even
by most of the left.
It might seem like standing by and doing nothing in the face of appalling horrors, but enlightenment
and revolution has to come naturally and from the people, and dropping foreign bombs is just going
to confuse the issue.
There are so many non-violent, more effective options that we never seem to use. Why not open
borders to allow show refugees compassion and that the rest of the world is not like their home
country? Why not charter warships to peacefully collect those seeking refuge, removing them from
the conflict rather than raining down more conflict on them? Why not do low fast flybys as a show
of not only vast force, but restraint, responsibility, compassion? Why not remove military force
peacefully, by cutting off arms trade? Why not drop thousands of flowers? Why not drop information?
Food? Teddy bears?
Well the liberal elite finally got what they wanted. A shooting war in the Middle East. I hope
The Guardian, BBC and Vauxhall Cross are all very proud of themselves this morning.
Russia has suspended the memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the
United States amid the US missile strike on Syria's Shayrat military airfield, according to
the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement.
And there is more to come. Now, US (and UK) aircrafts can be freely knocked down from the sky.
Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin
incident.
Also whenever the media just blindly report something as fact without any concrete evidence,
without any critical thought, investigation & examination etc then I'm always highly suspicious
(just like tthe last chemical attack, where they were eagerly stating that Assad did it, there
was video footage etc etc yet it turned out that it was the "Rebels" who were behind the attack
all along.
Of course the media never told us that, as soon as it became apparent that Assad did not do
it they dropped the story so fast, swept under the rug never to be reported ever again).
I mean it really doesn't add up as Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons (he's winning
the war(and would've won along time ago if it wasn't for the West proping up the supposed "Rebels
& Moderates" more like Isis and AQ), he benifets in no way, and only brings about international
scorn) risking the advantage he has), the whole thing comes across as very fishy.
All too convenient & very contrived. I think we're being had by the powers that be, and unfortunately
too many people aren't smart enough, don't possess the critical thinking to see that and will
fall for it hook, line and sinker, will take it all at face value.
Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence,
that Trump vindicated his action on.
So far, the information available, is not irrefutable i.e. that Assad's forces were involved
in a deliberate gas attack, and in fact he would be mad to do so, knowing it couldn't be concealed,
and the consequences are what we're seeing now.
At the moment, we are told that planes took off from that airfield, were logged on US radar
to the town, on which explosives were dropped, and that the military base, might have had stocks
of chemical weapons, in 2013.
Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence,
that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid.
Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist
rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency
at home.
Of course, if Assad is directly to blame, and that can be demonstrated without doubt, then
by all means, retaliate, and very hard, but until then, a more measured and circumspect appraisal
is now necessary.
I think we in the west need to be very careful and set an example by respecting international
law, for one day the Anglo world might not be the world's dominant military powers. There needed
to be a proper investigation before any action. Working with Russia to find out exactly
what happened.
How would we like to be struck at will with a total inability to respond by a militarily superior
foe wherever & whenever that foe feels like it? It could be a superior Chinese military floating
off our coast one day , with us screaming about international law.
I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly
there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind
it. How do they benefit?
Why use chemical weapons when the US said it was the "line"? Who does benefit from this? Have
false flag operations happened before (with proof)? It's extremely dangerous to believe what has
been said in the US and UK since this attack, and not answered these questions as well. Something
clearly is amiss here.
I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The
most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians.
But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly
advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda.
For the Trump administration it was a great moment to show China and North Korea that the USA
is capable of delivering a knock-out blow to the North Koreans nuclear ambitions.
And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to
a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve.
We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting.
This seems so coordinated - alleged chemical attack, universal condemnation of Assad, US missile
strike and then within hours ISIS are attacking Syrian army bases.
Shame so little condemnation here when US killed 100s if not 100s recently in Iraq, but seems
most here are now disgusting Trump supporters so no surprise.
It's all a convenient set up - ever since Trump announced he was pulling back from confronting
Assad - the war machine went into overdrive - and sucked Don in.
Another knee jerk reaction from the USA. Next thing we know the west can add Syria to its list
of disastrous military campaigns that will sink another country into even bigger chaos. Greater
loss of life and like Libya, a breeding ground for Daesh.
But still, think of the profit for the manufacturer of Cruise missiles. Another twenty six and
a half million dollars of missiles to be replaced. One wonders if top brass are on a commission
from the arms manufacturers?
Don't get me wrong, I loathe Assad. But I don't get why he would have launched a chemical attack
now. He's winning. He knows he loses by doing something like that. Are we sure he did it? If he
goes who's next? Are they worse? Why aren't we airlifting kids out of these areas, we could do
that. We moved kids during WW2, and we didn't have the technology we have now. If we can use a
drone to drop a missille, why can't it drop food and medications on people who need it. We are
morally bankrupt. In the face of all this immorality we sit here and order another Starbucks and
type with impotent rage. How can we get this to stop?
This is frightening: policy replaced by a knee-jerk reaction based on Trump's moods. The atrocity
was unspeakable, Assad is a vicious despot, Russia's backing for him is purblind. But..
In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime,
to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established
facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between.
And still US policy on Syria is a mystery, not to say non-existent: the strike raises more
questions than it answers. If this was limited action, was it anything more than gesture politics?
But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him?
Good comment - as mentioned elsewhere today Trump seems to be rapidly reversing his policy on
Syria - re Assad and refugees allowed entry to America etc. Might this airstrike action usefully
get him off the hook with regard to the Puppet of Russia accusations and define him in a "good"
light with his home audience in juxtaposition to Obama's reluctance to strike?
The Americans have surveillance that should be able to prove Assad was guilty. Time to show it.
Or maybe the Russians are right and Trump has been played by the jihadists who are quite capable
of gassing civilians to provoke a response against Assad.
Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been
framed. Only evidence can clear this up.
The worrying issue to me is that Trump seems to be capable of knee-jerk reactions with very little
diplomacy or forethought as to the inevitable consequences. The chemical raids were undoubtedly
a ghastly act by whoever perpetrated them, but in this particular conflict, like so many in that
troubled part of the world, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the good guys from the bad.
Now Trump wades in with unilateral air strikes - gunboat diplomacy at its worst that could spark
wider conflict. Now where did I put those instructions on how to build my nuclear shelter?
So many people want Assad gone. Who will be put in his place? The result of removing brutal dictators
from the Middle East is all too clear to see, not only across the Middle East, but across Europe
and across the world.
Where is the proof that it was Assad?
A year back Saudi smuggled weapons to Turkey supposedly in relation to the Syrian conflict,
but which the Turks would have used against the Kurds.
There is too much that isn't known in this instance to take action. I can't see Russia and
Assad now backing away. North Korea might even offer them a helping hand (whether that hand would
be taken might be unlikely, but backed into a corner - who knows).
There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including
children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot.
Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.
Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical
weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?
And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more
strikes from the US?
Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states
turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!
American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first
place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources
that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!
Wasn't a week ago US decided change policy on removing Assad..the Turks and the terrorists couldn't
have that so they made up this gas attack because its a red line, some of those filming those
horrific pictures were terrorists..the hawks used it and Trump fell for it.
The West wants to topple Syria in order to get closer to Iran and do the same thing there ( send
in and supply the murderous cut throats to collapse it from the inside) therefore anything about
Assad being this and the Syrian Government being that, as per the Western Media , is just Bull
....as far as I am concerned.
Personality related impulsive behaviour? Seems Trump feels a need for power without reflection
of the consequences of his actions and consultation with the leaders of other nations. abuse of
his position of power? If he makes these decisions what else will follow?
Trump is not capable of reflection or even forethought. He acts in the way he speaks, i.e. whatever
is passing through his head is the next thing to do/say. He is the most clueless US president
I've heard of, and that includes Reagan.
Orwell predicted a machine that would churn out garbage music to satisfy the proles. Does the
Guardian have such a machine simply attach a name before publishing?
6 years of hand-wringing? Let's have some more of that.
Amazing how many people, on both sides of the argument, are ready with hard and fast opinions
so rapidly. Might be an idea to wait until a few more facts are in, and the ramifications begin
to reveal themselves. But I guess that's not how the internet (or commentary) works.
Regime change of Syria was on Wesley Clarke's list 16 years ago after 9/11.
Assad had only just come to power, so it's clearly an orchestrated exercise and the US is frankly
running out of time and excuses not to get in and get the job done, ironically for the Swamp creatures
that Donald said he wanted to get rid of, what a complete numskull.
I thought Trump wasn't the warmonger and would focus on the USA, which would only concern itself
with other countries if there was something to gain from it. First he doesn't care and now that
he has seen dead children it is suddenly different? How rash and unpredictable.
It appears that the Guardian doesn't think it necessary to wait for the conclusion of any investigation
into the chemical attack before pronouncing Assad responsible. I take it this approach is an example
of what the Guardian considers to be "quality journalism". Most people would consider quality
journalism to rely upon evidence, rather than an editorial agenda.
FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG The only thing which could derail Assad's total victory in Syria
is if he uses chemical weapons. Then he uses chemical weapons. Whatever you think of Assad he
isn't mad. This is clearly a con and Trump has fallen for it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Donald Trump, the man who just over a month ago wanted to bar entry of all Syrian refugees
into the United States, now wants us to think that he cares deeply about Syrian children. I
don't believe it
Neither do I. I think he is trying to save his job. With Trump if you can't baffle them with
brains baffle them with BS. This attack is a distraction from the Russian/Flynn investigation.
What it achieves for Trump is the following:
1. Makes him look anti Russian. This is important because of the investigation into his cronies
connections with Russia.
2. Proves he has given up on Ukraine, so no removal of sanctions and therefore no big oil deal
with Russia.
3. Encourages ISIS and Al-Quaeda.
4. Has committed an act of war against Syria so America is now at war with Syria. A war with no
strategy like Iraq, Libya.
5. Makes Trump look like a leader.
6. Has probably alienated many of his supporters.
Most of all he thinks this action will save his job.
I see the international context as secondary to the US-domestic one. Since taking office Trump
has been made to look a twat by judges, demonstrators and his own legislature. And so the Syrian
chemical attacks previded him with a wonderful opportunity to do something military which is always
the fall-back of poor leaders. He can now say he is strong, America is strong, we'll take on the
bad guys, etc etc.
To be honest nobody really cares much about Assad (I doubt even the Russians do beyond his country's
strategic usefulness) so it was a target that while championed at home was always going to win
approval abroad (even if muttered under the breath).
It also allowed Trump to do the hard-man/big-swinging-dick act right in the Chinese leader's face
- again a 'win' for him.
I think he is calculating that he has just saved his presidency. Given the lunacy of US politics
at the moment he is probably right.
If there is anyone out there who would really think that Assad would be stupid enough to use chemical
weapons, he/she (Trump/May) must be, well, stupid.
Mr Trump admitted that US had done "bad things". This is just another example. What he has
done plays wholly into the hands of some very questionable regimes and IS.
The tomahawk was an offensive weapon. What is offensive about white USA adopting it to name
its modern killer is that the original carriers, defending their land, were mown down using the
latest weapon of the time - the Gatling gun.
America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity
- anywhere.
It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks
to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military
intervention without evidence or legality.
There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a
major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the
scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side.
Civil wars come to end either with defeat of one party or all sides becoming exhausted of violence.
The proxy backers ensure that defeat for their side is impossible, and the sectarian aspect makes
exhaustion a far off prospect since each side fears genocide should it lose. Nonetheless, it might
be over by now if Russia has not intervened to prop up Assad, reducing his need to compromise.
A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although
with modern munitions that seems unlikely.
As for the American air strike, a negative spin would be it made no difference (but the Russian
reaction suggest that is not the case) while a positive spin was that it tilted the balance back
towards a compromise ending (since Assad can no longer assume the Russian presence gives him immunity
from serious harm).
Isn't this exactly the kind of action that The Guardian and CNN etc have been goading Trump towards
since he took office? With every article accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge or a Manchurian
candidate, the "liberal" media has pushed him ever closer to sending this message .
The "message" isn't intended for Assad, and it's quite clearly marked with sheepish apologies
to Russia - which aren't going to wash, as Trump possibly guesses, but he had more urgent priorities
than Russia, such as proving that he isn't their "man" to domestic critics. This was all
done for the benefit of US and European audiences. Those in the media who clamored for it, must
have lost all sense of irony, not to say integrity, to come out with umbrage now that Trump as
reacted precisely as should have been predictable in order to defend his reputation against their
jibes.
The only redeeming feature of Trump's campaign was that he didn't seem to want to keep America
(and with it so much of the globe) embroiled in endless war. That broad instinct for a bit less
less war, if translated into actual policy, was the one Trump offering that you'd think the "liberal"
media could get behind.
But no. Trump was working for "the Russians", don't you know, and now he's prepared to push
us all one step closer to war with them just to disprove the playground taunts.
Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international
parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know
for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels",
or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America
created ISIS.
Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on
in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news
source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly,
Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of
the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable
narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has
been regarding acts of war in the past few decades.
When will the media accept the role they play in this? It is frankly grueling to read these
"outraged" reports while none of that goes acknowledged.
An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might
see one or the other interesting picture or video this year.
Trump tweet 2013 - What will we get from bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term
conflict. Do not attack Syria. Very many bad things will happen and US gets nothing!
I remember sitting in front of my TV watching the horror of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade
Centre. Fast forward 16 years and leader of the so called free world has bombed Syria on the say
so of Al-Qaeda while liberals cheer! What's going on?
This is a smokescreen, it has more to do with Trump giving a message to Xi face to face. He (Trump)
is telling Xi that if he doesn't deal with North Korea this is what he is capable of. Now watch
this drive.
I utterly despise how the narrative has just moved on and no one seems concerned with seeing any
proof of whether Assad is actually responsible for these attacks.
Assad probably had nothing to do with the attacks in 2013, and he has literally zero motive
for these attacks. Yet a vast majority of people just accept it because they trust the media to
do their job instead of act as a mouthpiece for warmongering assholes.
Shame on you Guardian, shame on all the journalists not questioning and demanding facts.
Clearly the chemical weapons attack was horrendous, not something we ever want to see repeated.
But i fear what we have done here, by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, is ensured that
the real perpetrator of these attacks is now emboldened and considering the whole thing a great
success. You'll note it is Al Qaeda (Al Nusra) and ISIS who are celebrating these US led attacks
on Syria. Think about that for a second. Are you really convinced they didn't carry out the chemical
attacks, in territory they held? They had everything to gain by doing so and casting the blame
on Assad, and given their defeat is currently almost certain, they had everything to gain.
Their ability to use such weapons is well documented in US intelligence reports.
Why are we so quick to jump to conclusions, when our chosen suspect has literally ZERO motive
for doing something like this.
Think people. Your journalists won't do it for you unfortunately.
In an interview conducted on April 5, 2017, Damian Walker, a former army bomb disposal officer,
made these observations: When I initially read that sarin nerve agent had been used in an attack
on Idlib, I was surprised that the chemical warfare agent had been identified so quickly. On watching
the video of the incident, I quickly concluded that it was unlikely a sarin attack. If it was
the first responders would also have been killed, and the victims' symptoms appeared to be the
result of a "choking agent", and not a military grade agent.
"largely ineffective bombing does little but make US lawmakers feel good".
Grateful for this insight. I think your last line covers what Trump actually intended. To look
to his own people, that he is acting decisively and those that supported him will see this action
as doing that. I think he intends no more than the appearance of looking like a decisive leader.
That can only be short lived as the reality impinges on his projected image to his supporters.
We have to vane men at the head of large countries - what could go wrong?!
We knew this new regime wanted war, Syria being it's first target, who knows north Korea and the
Russia.
The yanks need war to fuel and feed it's inhabitants, it simply can't resist without it.
Scary times to be a living in a world with mad yanks and that man controlling them.
God bless the people that suffer daily in Syria at the hands of American funded terror.
I'm quite suspicious that it happened at all. Syria denies responsibility and it seems logical
to question why they'd do the "chemical massacre" when it could only harm their own position.
May was in Saudi Arabia pretty quickly after Brexit was triggered to talk "trade" etc. It seems
that everybody hates Iran. Support for Trump's "targeted" attack is being quickly announced by
the apparent current alliance states, have there actually been any pictures released of the "chemical
massacre" of dead bodies? Just graves being dug, and graves already filled in with neatly placed
headstones - tidy. And, yes, children with oxygen masks on, but isn't sarin gas pretty quick acting,
being "26 times more deadly than cyanide" and leading to death by losing your insides to the outside,
basically.
A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing
chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this.
With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people,
the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes.
*If* there was actual evidence that Syria committed that crime, do you who favour military
action in Syria not think that most people would back attacking them with full force?
The rush to attack with no evidence says it all - it says there is none, the same MO as before.
Even the NY Times hardly a fan of Assad has backed down on the endless repeated assertions that
it was Assad forces that caused the 2O13 Ghouta chemical attack.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/that the BBC
does not even seem to question. This is the notorious Red line case that Obama allegedly fudged.
The reason was the evidence pointed clearly to it being a Rebel False Flag as Seymour Hersh the
guy who broke the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam first opined to near universal silence .
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
On this much every Guardian reader needs to at least assess the evidence and they won't get much
help from the MSN
But who needs evidence? And don't think for one moment Intelligence services not capable of doing
this. We all know about the WMD claims that were enough, despite being completely baseless, to
launch a war while the State Dept scrambled desperately to prove a non existent connection between
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
This is the Age of The Big Lie... the technique so ably initiated by Goebbels. Better than repeat
opinions at least research the evidence.
According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever
you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)...
Can someone/ anyone explain why, when he is winning on all fronts, Assad would use chemical
weapons?
When the other bad guys...isis twist of as a reaction...hope Trump will take them to court. Of
course such does not apply to USA...them not having signed up to ICC. An alleged isis in your
back garden gives them licence to bomb you. Happy days...for American arms industry
The issues in Syria are due to both uk and usa acting like mercenary in the first place, i see
it that obama is guilty of war crimes all due to been a puppet of saudi.
Its when we look at the bigger picture we can begin to realise what is causing all this..... The
UK is the world's second biggest arms exporter with a market share of about 20% and directly employs
350,000 people spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for
a living, now at the same time, then we must look back to when 2013, Wahhabism was identified
by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism, we must ask ourselves
as to why the UK is still selling weapons to saudi...as for Assad, the Syrian government of Assad
supports a secular regime and lifestyle while Saudi Arabia supports a conservative and religious
world view. The rebels supported by the Saudi Arabian government are religious extremists. In
this fight, UK and the usa are supporting the side of religious extremism against a secular state
for financial gain. Disgraceful really,
Trump saw some pictures of the victims of this chemical attack so he launches. The same people
have been killed in their hundreds of thousands with reports of same coming in regularly. The
written reports have no impact on him as he doesn't /can't read but the pictures..
A clear demonstration of how easily he could be manipulated.
I think Trump just lost 50 million votes. And he knows it.
IMO there are only two options now.
1) Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over
the brink, or
2) He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't
feel that important anymore
The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya
and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent
President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up.
There is as per , no investigation in the Guardian's coverage . The ultimate in unethical journalism
being the quoting of ' sources ' and "' the Syrian opposition ' ( ISIS ) say ......"
The credibility of the Syrian Gov. s claim that :
a) It was bombing ' opposition ' ( ISIS ) occupied enclave and
b) The chemicals were contained on the ground there and were released only by bombing the fact
of Syrian bombing :
Is not even mentioned let alone investigated . Yet it is an infinitely logical , credible and
likely claim .
Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and
would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of
what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself .
It'll be interesting to see how the media reacts when Al Qaeda launch their next chemical attack
on civilians and blame it on the 'Regime' (Or 'government', if we're using correct terminology):
will they still insist it's the regime doing it, even now it's clear that using chemical weapons
will bring immediate retaliation from the USA? Yes, they probably will.
This whole thing stinks. Assad is a wanker but he is not stupid, there's no way he'd deliberately
lose a war he's currently certain to win, by doing the only thing that could possibly result in
western interference.
The only way I can see the chemical attack having been the work of Assad would be if the whole
Trump/Russia business goes deeper than we realise, and this whole episode has been premeditated,
I.E. Assad used chemical weapons with the express agreement of Trump, who could then be seen as
standing up for civilised values and in defiance of Russia by launching retaliatory strikes, after
which no more chemical attacks occur, making Trump look like the good guy and taking some of the
heat off him regarding his links to Russia, with Assad losing a couple of planes and a handful
of soldiers - no great loss in the grand scheme of things.
Other than that slightly far-fetched conspiracy theory, I can think of no reason of any sort
why Assad would seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The US attack was carried out in retaliation for what they believe was a chemical attack initiated
by Assad's forces. The US has not waited for a thorough and unbiased investigation.
Inevitably this means that blame for any subsequent incidents involving chemical weapons will
automatically be ascribed to Assad - not to do so would call into question the justification of
the US action carried out overnight. The rebels have a Trump card. If hard pressed they can manufacture
a chemical atrocity and call in the cavalry. Haley won't even have to hold up pictures of wounded
children.
While the western powers seem to have made up their mind that Assad was guilty of the poison gas
attack, serious doubts must remain. The explanation of the Assad government and Russia seem credible
to me. The dismissal of those explanations is very lightweight indeed. This amounts to two arguments.
1. Bombing a sarin gas chemical weapons store would not release the gas. Really? That defies
logic.
2. The rebels do not possess sarin gas? How do we know that?
Apart from the lack of a credible motive for the use of chemical weapons, Assad, like Sadam
Hussein before him claims he does not possess such weapons. As in 2003 this has not prevented
a US missile attack on a foreign state. Back in 2003, Sadam Hussein was eventually proved right
and we all know what happened after that.
What is the evidence that Assad's air force carried out this attack? This seems to rely on
the fact of the gas poisoning (which no-one is disputing) and witness statements from the area
under attack from the Syrian air force. This is Idlib, to where the allegedly murderous Assad
allowed free passage to armed jihadist terrorists humanely ejected (rather than killed or taken
prisoner) from other parts of Syria including East Aleppo, from where skilled propaganda outlets
fed the appetites of Western media including the disgraceful Ch4 News, which has again been agitating
for military action against the Syrian government.
It will clearly be very hard to find independent witnesses amongst such a population, heavily
controlled by Jihadist fighters well used to targeting civilian areas of government controlled
Syria.
This development is sinister indeed. That Trump has shown such willingness to take such extreme
action so quickly, without firm evidence, should make us all very, very afraid.
The Guardian reports "Syrian rebels have welcomed the attack" but want more. Job done and it was
so easy for them. They also have a, UN proven, history of setting off chemical weapons in order
to get the US etc involved.
Trimp's actions show that US policy never changes. It is defined not by US President, but by US
establishment. It can change it's forms but never cnages in essence. Republicans and Demoсrats
in US are two wings of one bird.
It seems, that Trump, had he had noble intensions to change it's policy for the good was swallowed
by establishment the same as it happened with any US president, from Kennedy to Nixon. Otherwise,
it again shows that he is a talanted populist which perfectly played at protest spirits against
messiah tensions and nepotism in US (the Clinton and Bush dynasties).
Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against
a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles
in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a
colt to his head.
And even in this case, you should beware of a shot in back when you put this colt off. This
is how the world now feels the US.
one Tomahawk costing 1,59 milion $ , so the US last night spend around 100 million $ .....Enjoying
the world s reserve currency and print as much as you want of it is comfy innit ? Attacking yet
another nation without irrefutable justification reminds me of the Iraq debacle and its WMD, the
US of course can get away with similar acts of war being the world s "stabilizer", diverting at
the same time the attention from the civilian bloodshed in Mosul and Yemen. Thank you US of A,
the world is happy to have you around the world.
BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income
of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase?
If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on
the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX?
Will the NRA get the "message"?
Its not bloody Trump that is the problem, is it? He didn't want to attack Syria, we did. All these
fucking news agencies spouting propaganda coming straight from Al Qaida and their supporters.
The Guardian like all the others have completely forgotten the fake evidence of WMDs in Iraq and
are actually egging on for war. First they say Trump is dangerous to get into war and then the
same bloody people are demanding Trump to attack Syria!
This whole gas attack is the clearest red flag attack ever and every god damn main steam reporter
goes along with it, no questions asked.
Just look every single time an attack like this has occured just happens to be in what would
be the most illogical time for the Syrian government. Are you seriously saying that they are so
stupidly insane to think killing 100 people with gas is worth the diplomatic losses and military
wrath of the west? They could kill 1000 with conventional weapons, it makes zero sense.
Where is the god damn basic logic of looking at the beneficiaries to deduce the real motive
in what look like a murky issue.
The guardian quoting 'experts' saying a facility creating and stockpiling chemicals would not
leaked if bombed? Are you kidding me? You need incendiary napalm to burn the gas, but napalm is
porhibited and was NOT used in the alleged attack. Jeasus, use your god damn brain for once.
Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that
were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles
with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! Go back and look at them.
There are cars that look crumpled up, not burned and without any glass at all. That is impossible
to be as part of an attack by planes
Recruiting now! Western Dictator to run oil rich country in the Middle East. No experience necessary,
but must have a basic knowledge of civilian oppression, creating vacuums to religious extremists
and oil sales.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons on civilians when:
A) It's almost sure to provoke a reaction from Trump, an unpredictable and untested US President.
B) Assad has almost won the war using conventional weapons.
C) It increases pressure from the World community to displace him.
D) It will piss of his major ally Russia, who just had to effectively run from American missiles
and have zero will for direct conflict with the US. This is a proxy war.
It makes zero sense. None whatsoever and I'm sorry I'm having a hard time believing it.
I'm no fan of Assad - his barrel bombs are disgusting enough. I'm no fan of Putin or the USA/Trump/the
Jihadi rebel extremists they've armed: So I'm taking no sides other than to say that this stinks
and looks exactly as if it was designed to escalate the conflict and get what a lot of people
want - US involvement in toppling Assad and sending a message to Russia and Iran.
Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump
is to manipulate.
"Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure
in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account.
"The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar
(al-Assad) and his aides."
Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong?
Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad
will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank
America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America
As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria
and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many
times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power.
''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya
or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012.
A purely political act by Trump to show that he's not beholden to Putin in the face of mounting
concern about his campaign and the election. Red meat for the rednecks who backed him. Doesn't
bode well for the future - in flagrant breach of international law.
...
"There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations
under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the UN security council," Trump
said on Thursday night.
The challenge for this all-new season of Trump is that his first and biggest test is credibility.
The world needs to trust the United States: that these bombing targets are legitimate, that the
Syrian regime is indeed responsible, and that the president has the legal authority and political
support of the international community and Congress.
The strikes were senseless in that there is no proof of Syrian involvement in the chemical
attacks beyond information coming from Al Quaeda controlled territory.
Motive is important and Assad is no fool. Why on earth would he risk it all for no gain in using
chemical weapons when the war is all but won.
Trumps been hoodwinked by the neocons and war hungry establishment
Sarin is combustible. The agent may burn but does not ignite readily. Fire may produce
irritating, corrosive, and/or toxic gases. If a tank, rail car, or tank truck is involved in
a fire, isolate it for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions; also, consider initial evacuation
for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions.
Small spills (involving the release of approximately 52.83 gallons (200 liters) or less),
when sarin (GB) is used as a weapon.
Well, definitely an act of aggression and hence illegal under the UN Charter - now, who
will bring a condemning Resolution in the Security Council ? And who will vote against it,
or even veto it ?
I see the UK Government has already mindlessly agreed with the aggressive act.
But what will the US's military strike – a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk
cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?
It's pretty clear that this is Trump just being the lunatic amateur that he is, you know the one
we all worried because he had his finger on the button. He authorised the fatally flawed Yemen
raid only days after assuming office. This is Dr Trumplove in action, there's nothing the public
and his sycophantic fans would enjoy more than a reprise of the missiles down elevator chutes
that lit up our televisions in '92. This time the war will not be televised...it will be on twitter.
Share
Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed over 150
civilians in Iraq.
Having said that, I find it difficult not to support a targeted strike at Assad's military
bases. I would never however support an invasion or occupation of another Arab country as we all
know that would be a huge mistake; the tens of thousands of Arabs that would die, Western military
personnel put at risk and financial cost.
Assad must be stopped, but only the Syrians themselves must take the lead in forming a new
government without continued interference from the outside. Formation of a new government at any
point must be home-grown alone.
Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks all over
Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but not Syria.Get
real.
Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
In that case, why on earth would Assad do it. It weakens his case in all respects and strengthens
his enemies.
But of course such an argument flies in the face of hawks worldwide.
The whole thing is a sad sorry affair. I'm not sure I can trust anything any side is saying. One
thing is certain is this proxy wars between Russia and the US will continue in all shapes and
form first the next 20 years at least.
One question though. Those US air strikes that killed over 100 civilians last week. Why have they
not got the same coverage as the chemical weapons? Isn't killing, killing?
Well, the deep state always wins. The idea that assad used chemical weapons (which the country
was declared free of a fee years ago) immediately after trump declared a policy of non regime
change beggars belief.
This article is calling for the grounding of Russian and syrian planes. The first action could
cause WWIII. The second would allow isis to invade Damascus.
I suppose the use of chemical weapons in 2013 in Syria was doen to the CIA and Obama? You are
probably yet another conspiracy "nut" who thinks that the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq
by Assad's chum Saddam was Fake News. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this now. Who
financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are responsible for the whole
mess.
According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an escalation
even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of gurning imbeciles
and if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.
The chances are that there will be no response of any kind. Will this drive a President, having
an unhealthy mix of behavioral problems and frustrated by failure in his domestic policy, to take
further dramatic action in order to attract attention in the style of his spoilt brat counterpart
in North Korea, Kim Jong-un? Share
Facebook
Twitter
This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in London. I don't
believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in any case they are not interested
in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act. Share
Facebook
Twitter
No, certainly not. I would never advocate terrorist acts against anybody. But this action will
do the US and the Western alliance no good at all and will diminish their standing in the world.
The US/UK population must hold their leaders to account over this nonsense, and demand proof of
the dubious claims over the supposed chemical attack.
I actually feel that Trump may have got this just about right. If we actually believe that a plane
from this airbase delivered a Sarin attack, then it was necessary to prevent a repetition. But
equally it was necessary to avoid the US being dragged into a war against Assad, which so many
are desperate to see happen, and it was necessary to avoid World War 3 by avoiding killing Russians.
If the Russians, as they probably did, warned the Syrians and few people were actually killed
by this strike, then maybe it will all calm down now, the Syrian air force won't ever use Sarin
again and can concentrate on defeating the rebels instead which, like it or not, is probably the
quickest route to peace.
I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would he
risk retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war
Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US president
but perhaps not unexpected.
Even if Assad needs to be removed the idea as well that Trump has a post regime plan to do
that is laughable.
We have seen what happened in Iraq and Libya when bad dictators were overthrown and a bad situation
ended up much worse in terms of a replacement by militant Islamist groups.
Unfortunately what we have here is ISIS 1 (Trump o.g), Commonsense and sanity 0
But if the alleged planes carrying chemical weapons came from Homs that just got 59 bombs, where
was the topic cloud? Weren't they suppose to have a chemical stock in this airbase ? Strange that
no chemical in sight.
1. Susan Rice – mother lode for all the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories via her unmasking
of names and wide dispersal of same, but "nothing to see here".
I would have posted this comment below said title but, of course, no comments are possible,
just as they aren't below most of, for example, David Smith's execrable anti-Trump 'output'.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get
these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid
yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
Trump said.
Now:
"I will tell you that attack on children had a big, big impact on me," he said. "That was
a horrible, horrible thing."
Assad has absolutely no motive to order this attack. His forces, with Russia's assistance have
gained the upper hand in the protracted conflict with US and UK backed terrorists. Why on earth
would he do something that he knows would bring international condemnation and likely military
action from the US?
Stinks to high heaven of a false flag- the fact that global MSM had solved the crime and broadcast
the perpertrators all over global media within an hour is enough proof for me - the stories would
have had to have been pre-packaged.
Perhaps you could tell that to the Guardian writers (the "liberal interventionists") who have
been beating the war drums for years, failing to learn any lessons from Iraq and Libya. I see
no plan for the aftermath, and I see no real consideration given to the threat of a further decline
in relations with Russia.
And, do these people seriously want Trump overseeing a regime change? It would be more chaotic
than when Bush tried it in Iraq.
There are at likely two parties that are very happy about the USA attack on Syrian airfield. They
are Syrian al-Qaeda which governs Idlib province where the alleged chemical attack happened and
ISIS.
Both can count that alleging Assad for chemical attacks may get Donald Trump´s USA to become
their air force. If there is a red line, cross it and blame Assad. I think that may be how al-Qaeda
and ISIS leaders are interpreting the events.
a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield
– really accomplish?
That's $70 million down the drain JUST on missiles.
.
Made a certain group of shareholders owning a certain military company trading in NYSE slightly
wealthier.
.
Also, a participatory certificate for participating in a virility contest.
I thought Russian air defences were supposed to be able to shoot down tomahawk missiles. They
don't travel all that fast. Perhaps they wanted to put pressure on Assad and let them pass.
Well, definitely an act of aggression and hence illegal under the UN Charter - now, who will
bring a condemning Resolution in the Security Council ? And who will vote against it, or even
veto it ?
I see the UK Government has already mindlessly agreed with the aggressive act.
But what will the US's military strike – a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk
cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?
It's pretty clear that this is Trump just being the lunatic amateur that he is, you know the one
we all worried because he had his finger on the button. He authorised the fatally flawed Yemen raid
only days after assuming office. This is Dr Trumplove in action, there's nothing the public and his
sycophantic fans would enjoy more than a reprise of the missiles down elevator chutes that lit up
our televisions in '92. This time the war will not be televised...it will be on twitter. Share
Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed over 150 civilians
in Iraq.
Having said that, I find it difficult not to support a targeted strike at Assad's military bases.
I would never however support an invasion or occupation of another Arab country as we all know that
would be a huge mistake; the tens of thousands of Arabs that would die, Western military personnel
put at risk and financial cost.
Assad must be stopped, but only the Syrians themselves must take the lead in forming a new government
without continued interference from the outside. Formation of a new government at any point must
be home-grown alone.
Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks all over
Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but not Syria.Get real.
Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
In that case, why on earth would Assad do it. It weakens his case in all respects and strengthens
his enemies.
But of course such an argument flies in the face of hawks worldwide.
The whole thing is a sad sorry affair. I'm not sure I can trust anything any side is saying. One
thing is certain is this proxy wars between Russia and the US will continue in all shapes and form
first the next 20 years at least.
One question though. Those US air strikes that killed over 100 civilians last week. Why have they
not got the same coverage as the chemical weapons? Isn't killing, killing?
Well, the deep state always wins. The idea that assad used chemical weapons (which the country was
declared free of a fee years ago) immediately after trump declared a policy of non regime change
beggars belief.
This article is calling for the grounding of Russian and syrian planes. The first action could
cause WWIII. The second would allow isis to invade Damascus.
I suppose the use of chemical weapons in 2013 in Syria was doen to the CIA and Obama? You are probably
yet another conspiracy "nut" who thinks that the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq by Assad's
chum Saddam was Fake News. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this now. Who
financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are responsible for the whole
mess.
According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an escalation
even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of gurning imbeciles and
if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.
The chances are that there will be no response of any kind. Will this drive a President, having
an unhealthy mix of behavioral problems and frustrated by failure in his domestic policy, to take
further dramatic action in order to attract attention in the style of his spoilt brat counterpart
in North Korea, Kim Jong-un? Share
Facebook
Twitter
This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in London. I don't
believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in any case they are not interested
in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act. Share
Facebook
Twitter
No, certainly not. I would never advocate terrorist acts against anybody. But this action will do
the US and the Western alliance no good at all and will diminish their standing in the world. The
US/UK population must hold their leaders to account over this nonsense, and demand proof of the dubious
claims over the supposed chemical attack.
I actually feel that Trump may have got this just about right. If we actually believe that a plane
from this airbase delivered a Sarin attack, then it was necessary to prevent a repetition. But equally
it was necessary to avoid the US being dragged into a war against Assad, which so many are desperate
to see happen, and it was necessary to avoid World War 3 by avoiding killing Russians.
If the Russians, as they probably did, warned the Syrians and few people were actually killed
by this strike, then maybe it will all calm down now, the Syrian air force won't ever use Sarin again
and can concentrate on defeating the rebels instead which, like it or not, is probably the quickest
route to peace.
I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would he risk
retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war
Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US president but
perhaps not unexpected.
Even if Assad needs to be removed the idea as well that Trump has a post regime plan to do that
is laughable.
We have seen what happened in Iraq and Libya when bad dictators were overthrown and a bad situation
ended up much worse in terms of a replacement by militant Islamist groups.
Unfortunately what we have here is ISIS 1 (Trump o.g), Commonsense and sanity 0
But if the alleged planes carrying chemical weapons came from Homs that just got 59 bombs, where
was the topic cloud? Weren't they suppose to have a chemical stock in this airbase ? Strange that
no chemical in sight.
1. Susan Rice – mother lode for all the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories via her unmasking of
names and wide dispersal of same, but "nothing to see here".
I would have posted this comment below said title but, of course, no comments are possible, just
as they aren't below most of, for example, David Smith's execrable anti-Trump 'output'.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these
terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself.
When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.
Now:
"I will tell you that attack on children had a big, big impact on me," he said. "That was a
horrible, horrible thing."
Assad has absolutely no motive to order this attack. His forces, with Russia's assistance have gained
the upper hand in the protracted conflict with US and UK backed terrorists. Why on earth would he
do something that he knows would bring international condemnation and likely military action from
the US?
Stinks to high heaven of a false flag- the fact that global MSM had solved the crime and broadcast
the perpertrators all over global media within an hour is enough proof for me - the stories would
have had to have been pre-packaged.
Perhaps you could tell that to the Guardian writers (the "liberal interventionists") who have
been beating the war drums for years, failing to learn any lessons from Iraq and Libya. I see no
plan for the aftermath, and I see no real consideration given to the threat of a further decline
in relations with Russia.
And, do these people seriously want Trump overseeing a regime change? It would be more chaotic
than when Bush tried it in Iraq.
There are at likely two parties that are very happy about the USA attack on Syrian airfield. They
are Syrian al-Qaeda which governs Idlib province where the alleged chemical attack happened and ISIS.
Both can count that alleging Assad for chemical attacks may get Donald Trump´s USA to become their
air force. If there is a red line, cross it and blame Assad. I think that may be how al-Qaeda and
ISIS leaders are interpreting the events.
a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield
– really accomplish?
That's $70 million down the drain JUST on missiles.
.
Made a certain group of shareholders owning a certain military company trading in NYSE slightly wealthier.
.
Also, a participatory certificate for participating in a virility contest.
I thought Russian air defences were supposed to be able to shoot down tomahawk missiles. They don't
travel all that fast. Perhaps they wanted to put pressure on Assad and let them pass.
As the missile strike have already happened ('justice' before investigation) so will there be an
independent investigation about what was the cause of the gas leakage ?
The usual suspects, those actually responsible for false flag unleashing chemical weapons, have apparently
achieved only a limited response from el trumpo... and one unlikely to satisfy their lust ultimately
to bring down the Syrian government. This action designed as a stage to that end to uncouple trumpo
and putin...
Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama. 300,000 people
have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding, arming and supporting ISIS?
It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia influence in the region. Again, 300,000
have died already!
As the missile strike have already happened ('justice' before investigation) so will there be
an independent investigation about what was the cause of the gas leakage ?
The usual suspects, those actually responsible for false flag unleashing chemical weapons, have
apparently achieved only a limited response from el trumpo... and one unlikely to satisfy their
lust ultimately to bring down the Syrian government. This action designed as a stage to that end
to uncouple trumpo and putin...
Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama. 300,000
people have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding, arming and supporting
ISIS? It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia influence in the region.
Again, 300,000 have died already!
At the moment there's a big fat Chinese elephant in the room. All this goes on as he hosts the
Chinese delegation in Florida. I wonder how much Trumps decision to bomb Syria was to do with
showing the Chinese he means business. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Interesting timing as Trump first says hands off Syria, then suddenly a sarin gas attack by Assad,
the world goes omg he must go, Hillary gives a speech we must bomb their airfields, and whammy
some 30 minutes later we hear the missiles went flying. Talk about a set up.
Trump in trouble at home and resorts to a pointless military gesture in Syria... The Guardian,
which spends most of it's editorial time blaming Assad for Syria's problems, and demanding action,
will now bemoan the deaths at the airfield...
All some prankster needs to do to unleash armageddon is to photoshop a nuclear bomb going off
over California and post it to Trump's twitter feed with a fake @VladPutin account and we'd all
better hide under a table, tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.
This could be a comment section on the daily mail, such is the vitriolic posts, there is not one
shred of evidence that these weapons were used by forces loyal to Assad, and Turkey acting as
a go between Russia and Syria against the rebels and western forces stinks of the highest hypocrisy,
as for sending China a message over Korea this will just reinforce the ties between China and
Russia and who wants to take them on, thank fuck we're leaving hopefully after we've left our
politicians wont be so gung ho in the future when it comes to foreign policy and sticking our
noses in every conflict going
Assad knows the Americans are watching every move he is making and he knows chemical weapons are
a red line for them. He may be bad enough to carry out such an attack but is he mad enough? I
seriously doubt it, either way Trump is now acting as the air-force for ISIS
Trump showing how easy he is to manipulate. We've seem false intelligence reports and outright
doctored fake attacks/incidents, often alleging gas/chemical weapons, used time and again to justify
acts of aggression
The Guardian has always pushed for war, War in Iraq based on lies, war in Libya based on lies
and now war in Syria. We will see a massive effort to stop any proper investigation of the chemical
attack.
Trump appeared to be for ramping down tensions, he was mercilessly attacked by the Guardian
(and the entire mainstream media. Now Trump has caved in, a unilateral attack with no proper investigation.
The word of the Syrian terrorists, the very same people who attack us on our streets, has been
taken as truth.
Assad was winning the war against opposition forces. He has the backing of the most ruthlessly
efficient fighting force in existence. Why was he so stupid as to use chemical weapons?
Putin is helping Syria, because a dictator wants to help another dictator........
By that logic why are the NATO countries supporting and arming Saudi Arabia?
Why have the Americans and their NATO lapdogs been supporting Al Nusra in Syria?
What is the evidence that Assad was using chemical weapons? Numerous parties in the Middle East
have access to sarin. And as many have said, there is no motive for Assad to used chemical weapons
- he was winning the war. I know, people construct a motive, but really, it's a case of cui bono
- and it's not Assad.
Mission accomplished for the Pentagon hawks. Trump was minded to wind down the mission on Iraq
and end the vilification of Russia. One unverified "chemical attack", in the mould of Chemical
Ali and the glove puppet Trump turns full circle. Russia will be drawn into this, so it's two
birds with one stone. US regime change in Syria can continue as can the pressure on oil and gas
rich Russia.
Is it proven that it was the syrian air force which carried out the attack in the first place?
Or is this another WMD lie that we are supposed to act upon?! How many times did we watch videos
of murdered children only to find out that they were made and staged and paid for by the western-backed
rebels.
I simply don't buy any of this manipulation anymore.
Very bad mistake to wipe out the base and many of its occupants on an unproven assumption that
the Syrian armed air force dropped the chemical weapons. To discount the fact that ISIS (who use
chemical attacks) may have set off the chemical attacks after/during the air strike is plain stupid.
Now USA has has given ISIS an assist and deeply damaged relations with Russia...
Recently in Washington there has been a clear shift away from the non globalist Bannon to the
mainstream McMaster/Mathhis orbit of influence. The writer has missed the point of the strike.
It was meant for Putin not Assad.
Sorry, there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, yes someone did and it could have
been IS or anyone else who wants to get rid of Saddam. Many including IS have drones, and they
could possible have dropped the chemical weapons, they could also have made the chemical weapons
- whose to say there is no chemist in such groups? All the chemical weapons in Syria were removed
by the UN. The west, and particularly the US, which loves war, has over the years been quick to
condemn people, and countries without having any evidence. It about time people got back to finding
out the facts, before making statements.
A lot of so called factual information coming out of Syria is by the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights, which turns out to be a guy who lives in Coventry, who is funded by a certain EU country.
Unfortunately Trump's action was a total success from his point of view: it will play very well
with his domestic ratings, it appears to have surgically executed, he has received immediate affirmation
from key western allies and the Russians were shown 'consideration', he broken international law
and done his own thing the one time he could get away with it, it does not matter to him that
he has no after plan.
Of course the danger is what happens if the stakes escalate ...
I hate to say and I regret that he had an opportunity to thrive.
This is a tragic situation with no obvious easy solutions, but, it seems as far as this paper
is concerned, Trump is screwed whatever he does.
Also, small point, why is it offensive to call a missile " tomahawk? What difference does it make,
its a weapon ffs.
The article basically agrees with the MSM that Syria is guilty. Why would Syria use chemical weapons
when it winning the war against the heart eating demented lunatics. The west has a history of
framing up countries it does not like. And why is ok for Saudi arabia to bomb children in Yemen
on a daily basis.
I don't really understand all the fuss about chemical weapons. Killing is killing. The numbers
matter more than the methods. The United States Empire has been racking up a pretty high score
in the last decade. Trump said he was going to work with Russia and pacify the situation in Syria.
Sadly it looks like he going down the same tragic route as his predecessors.
I absolutely hate Trump. But I think for once he listened to some experts, because this doesn't
seem that bad a response to me. As the author says, it was actually very limited - won't significantly
degrade Assad's capabilities and for obvious reasons they avoided hitting the Russians.
That said, it will probably be a big enough deterrent to stop Assad using chemical weapons on
civilians again in the near future - which is obviously a good thing. Share
It violates both US and International Law. There's many a precedent in the ME already showing
that the locals don't like it when we in the West try to influence their politics.
It makes no sense - Assad has almost cleaned out Isis - knowing full well that a gas attack would
incur the wrath of the US. Why would he do this now? Under Obama it was too blatant to intervene,
as they'd been caught doing this. Total set up. Neo-cons now salivating at the prospect that they
can bully Trump into this.
Syria was a moderate Muslim country - before funded Isis moved in. Turkey have a plan for this
too, and will flood Europe with the proceeds of these 'interventions'
It is difficult to see what benefit Assad hoped to gain from a small-scale (compared to what
is possible with these weapons) chemical-weapon attack on civilians in rebel-held territory.
Conclusions regarding the gas attack have been made and military action has been taken before
an exhaustive investigation by credible independent and responsible authorities. At best, this
is unwise.
Assad is horrendous, but is not the only monster in Syria. And some of those other monsters
might indeed be well-served by a chemical-weapons attack that could lead to US military action
against Assad.
And the bigger question is just what are US objectives here? What, exactly, have those 59 cruise
missiles achieved, other than getting Trump some more air-time?
Indeed, without the stomach for a much wider and bloody engagement with Syria, with US troops
in the line of fire, what contribution can the US actually make to this terrible conflict?
And at the end of the day, who would be the monster that would replace Assad?
Why would Assad launch a chemical attack in a war he is winning? Why would Russia want him to?
He doesn't stand to benefit from it.
Regardless, if Assad didn't launch the strikes I wonder if such a precipitate attack without
investigation isn't an attempt to improve domestic support by Trump.
These missiles cost nearly 1.5 million USD each.
Wouldn't this money be better spent helping the displaced and refugee civilian population.
Unfortunately the "defense and arms" industry are very good at lobbying......
Trump was talking about 'beautiful little babies' , are kids in Yemen and Mosul in Iraq not beautiful
enough or something? And why no graphic images from those places in the aftermath of our strikes?
Do our MS media even realise how much they are being manipulated by warmongers? Do they care?
60 tomahawks vs S400. Were any shot down or did they all reach the target? If none were shot down,
and if no S400 were fired, that puts an interesting spin on things presuming Russia still has
operational control over those systems. US/Russia teaming up to put Assad back in his box? Share
Facebook
Twitter
The US notified the Russians first of the attack, I would guess at pretty short notice, however
it would still enable russians to take out a good proportion of tomahawks.
They, seemingly, did not attempt to try.
At best, I think the actions could be interpreted as - we will back you Assad, but within reason.
I doubt Putin really gives a shit about using chemical weapons but he is smart enough to know
he has to play the game in front of an international audience.
When a crime has been committed , one has to look at who has the motive as well as means and opportunity.
The Syrian Rebels stand to gain hugely from US air support, Assad stands to lose. He was already
winning the civil war, why would he need to use chemical weapons?
The US Hawks have been itching for an excuse to indulge in yet another regime change which
would result in the same mess as Libya and Iraq. The hopes for an end to this awful civil war
have just been dealt a huge blow by the US.
It has nothing to do with Assad. Trump is in trouble at home and he desperately needed a diversion.
Whether Assad actually provided Trump with that opportunity with this chemical attack or 'this
attack' is another of the Iraq WMD type of lie we will never know.
One thing is clear that America has just proved again it is a rogue State.
The main issue for me, and many others including the ex-UK ambassador to Syria (just interviewed
on BBC), is that there is absolutely no evidence that Assad committed this chemical atrocity.
He also (the ex-ambassoary) added that the Jihadi groups would be jubilant that the USA has
lined up with them and that women and minority groups in Syria will be terrified. However evil
Assad is he has protected the rights of women and minorities.
This knee-jerk attack from Trump has echoes of Blair and the dodgy dossier and of course the
way we messed up Lybia.
Trump is an imbecile.
Neocons never left office in the US
I feel sorry for those still in the UK- your government is just as bad and it will be civilians
who end up paying the price.
Cameron attempted to rush war against Syria through Parliament and that was stopped in its tracks.
Subsequently, fake news and inaccurate reporting presented a story that Assad used chemical weapons
and that transpired to be false and the UN investigation concurs it was not Assad. We've now had
Boris Johnson and American counterparts cranking up the rhetoric against Syria all week leading
up to this new chemical attack of which there is no evidence that it was Assad but, America strikes
without proper investigation. This seems to be a reaction that can only cause tensions and flame
anti-west sentiment.
Iraq 2.0 was inevitable. There has never been a US President in my lifetime that has not started
a war on the assumption of chemical weapons. The US and UK Foreign Secretaries have both been
asked to clarify evidence and both have failed to produce.
Remember "Catch 22"?
Usarian drops his bombs in the sea rather than bomb an Italian town.
The military have a big problem and do what the often do in such a situation rather than court
marshalling Usarian they give him a medal for dropping a perfect square pattern in the sea.
Lets hope this attack is a Usarian moment from Trump, a perfect square pattern on the Homs
run way.
The West can now walk away or go for a potential fight with a nuclear power based on evidence
from Al Nusra front, a branch of al Qaeda.
Syrian rebels will be emboldened to start full scale war again. If Trump wishes to remove Assad
would he support Isis. Could Isis and the rebels form an anti Assad alliance. This is probably
the level of thinking going on at the Pentagon.
Trump's inviting the law of the jungle in that case. You can just go around settling scores militarily
with anyone who you feel has 'taunted' you. Any more than you can go around town punching anyone
you believe has looked at you in a strange way.
The rebels will now have an incentive to fake another chemical attack and bring the US fully
into the war with Syria and Russia. Syria will then be left to the warring factions to fight it
out just like Libya and Iraq.
Innocent children have to die just to further US destabilisation policy.
Don´t you think there could be somebody else´s fingerprints involved too. Third parties, who never
abandoned their goal of toppling Assad for "a noble cause, that justifies any means".
More US bombastic looney-ness. This is nothing to do with the US. All it does is spread dissatisfaction
to the US and Europe endangering lives in those countries. This has absolutely nothing to do with
US security, it is Trump trying to show what a great warmongering guy he is to satisfy the US
gun-lobby and those who voted for him. Clearly it is better for the US to kill "women, children
and beautiful babies" with bombs than for Syria to kill them with gas.
Trump risks now losing widely of his voter support, because the presidential campaign promised
less military interference in ME.. Many voters are outraged now and feel cheated. Another thing
will be, is he now going gain enough lib neocon support the compensate his lost credibility. If
he does not, he is just done, judging to an angry tune in many media reader´s comments.
It comes from the same sources that claimed Iraqi soldiers killed babies in incubators during
the first Gulf war and same sources again that claimed the Iraqi's had mountain's of weapons of
mass destruction.
You are most probably right, although, in his haste to respond to this alleged chemical attack
by the Syria government, Donald Trump and his EU allies will not have properly consider the implications.
We have seen that from Bush and Blair in the Iraq debacle, and now we are seeing it from Donald
Trump. Bomb first and ask questions later, is their guiding principle.
Of course Daesh/ISIS stands to gain most from this emerging disaster. The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan
have still not been learnt, and, sadly, as far as western imperialism is concerned, never will!
Who stands to gain from using chemical weapons in Syria? Assad, whose forces were winning the
war & who previously Trump was sympathetic to? Or CIA-backed extremists who needed to drag US
forces into the conflict?
Unfortunately, we have an incompetent, mentally unbalanced fake in the White House, who, whenever
he fails to deliver on his bluster of pie-in-the-sky promises on the home front, seems likely
to only escalate global conflict.
US & indeed most military action invariably has ulterior motives. Here it suits the extreme
right-wing Trump administration & Steve Bannon well as it also distracts the masses from the series
of embarrassments surrounding Trump's presidency so far. Probably NK gets bombed later, which
will only provoke China & so on. We live in dangerous times.
Michael Fallon was just on LBC.
Presenter: So what's the solution
Fallon: So, we would like to see a situation develop like Iraq where it is now a democracy where
sunni and Shia can come together. The Iraqi government is slowing rebuilding the country with
our help.
Presenter: So Iraq is the blueprint?
Fallon: No
What a crock of shit. First of all well done to the presenter for saying straight after the
interview "the defence secretary says that Iraq is the blueprint for Syria" ha ha.
Seriously though how can Fallon he say that with a straight face. 100 Civilians including 10s
of children were killed last week by US strikes. They just ignore these facts and pursue their
own narrative.
I was listening to R4 on the way to work and they had the ex British ambassador to Syria on, He
quickly stated that he believed that it was not Assad explaining what would Assad expect to achieve
by using chemical weapons etc, as soon as the BBC interviewer realised that the Ambassador was
not giving the usual Anti Assad lines they quickly pulled the interview.
Trump's motives for bombing Syria may well be questionable, to say the least, but if the result
is to make any power think twice about using chemical weapons as a legitimate form of war then
that is surely a good thing.Chemical agents cannot be uninvented but their use can be if those
contemplating their deployment are in no doubt that they will not go unpunished.There has to be
a point at which barbarism has to be declared unacceptable. Share
No big fan of Donald Trump. But the question you have to ask yourself is "should the international
community accept the use of chemical weapons against civilians?"
The rest is just hair-splitting. Share
Facebook
Twitter
There's a law against chemical weapons use. It's a war crime, yes. But at the same time, no country
is allowed to attack another without getting UN approval.
And there it is. But . The guy unleashed 50 m worth of ordinance to impress the Chinese
and people here think it is something to do with saving Syrias children..we are finished as a
species...
so whilst Trump's just attacked Syria, he also continues to obliterate Yemen; in doing so he continues
a fine tradition upheld by successive US President's: "we can and will bomb who ever we choose,
with impunity".
some recent headlines:
New Evidence Contradicts Pentagon's Account of Yemen Raid, But General Closes the Case
.
Aid Officials Beg Congress to Help Yemen, While Trump Sends More Bombs
.
U.S. Launched More Airstrikes in Yemen Last Month Than in All of 2016
.
Media Silent As Saudi Arabia Devastates Yemen Into Famine
.
The Last 5 Presidents Have This One Thing in Common
There are still and video records of the so called white hats handling alleged sarin gas victims
BARE HANDED and wearing paper masks. The "doctor" in the "hospital" is on video sending tweets
and taking video calls while supposedly overwhelmed with victims. This "doctor" has been struck
off the British medical register and is sought by British police in relation to extremist links.
That town and that part of
Idlib is completely under the control of heart eating head choppers. The US has stated that terrorists
in Iraq have carried out chemical weapons attacks. The party line on the august 13 attack in Ghouta
has long since fallen apart. The NYT published a " missile vector " proving the missiles came
from SAA positions 9km away- unfortunately the missile with traces of sarin had a maximum range
of 2km. UN inspector Carla del Ponte stated that the attack was probably carried out by the terrorists.
The US and its toadys including Australia have no people in that area- unless the are "embedded"
with the terrorists- so how is it they immediately concluded it was an aerial attack? Have bomb
fragments been tested for sarin? Having fired a barrage of cruise missiles in "retaliation" is
there any prospect that conclusive proof that EITHER a govt or terrorist act has occurred when
the conclusion has been reached before a credible inquiry?
I have half a feeling that one day this will turn out to be a false flag event in order to bring
the USA into the conflict against the Syrian regime.
Trump might have played it well though. A pre warned attack against a Syrian airfield causing
very little damage and no Russian casualties while telling Putin what he was up to for his own
domestic media needs.
Or it could have been an act of sheer madness by Assad's regime. Who knows the truth these
days.
When Seymour Hersh's original report
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line is ignored and
when the subsequent research on this
http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=7
is also ignored and the idea of False Flag operations is not even mentioned on the BBC while
all the mouthpieces line up to repeat non evidence or dubious assertions as Certain Facts, despite
the known history of lies going back to the notorious WMD charade which was enough to launch a
war shows that its not False News that is the major problem but Lies of Omission.
On the BBC ex UK ambassador Peter Ford gets 3mins to counteract the Deluge of " Certainty" that
it was the Regime responsible. None with new or real evidence of the standard that destroyed the
WMD lie.
It nearly worked in Ghouta in 2O13... it was inevitable to be tried again and Trump jumps straight
in. The Deep State in the US is back in business
Has the situation w.r.t. access to and use of chemical weapons by the various agents in Syria,
or the US political use of intelligence in this area, changed since Obama in 2013?
During this war against Daesh, an Arab country, Syria, formed for the first time a strong and
effective army, which will be a threat to Israel after the war. Visibly, in Tel Aviv as in Washington
it was decided to quickly destroy it ...
I'm also a bit skeptical of the explanation of why Assad would do such a thing, particularly at
this time. What on earth could he hope to gain?
That 'he's a madman' or 'he's just evil' have never struck me as anything but mindlessly simplistic
responses. I've watched interviews with the man, and he struck me as neither hopelessly daft or
completely bonkers. Evil, perhaps. But stupidly impulsive? I'm not so easily persuaded, especially
by such one dimensional -- and stereotypical -- characterizations.
Frankly, much as I hate to say it, I find the Russian explanation to be the most plausible.
And it's a sad day for Western media when the Russians look like the grown-ups in the room.
Getting rid of Assad will solve the problem?, I can remember being told getting rid of someone
called Saddam would solve the problem. But it only made it worse, very much worse, for the little
people in that part of the world that is, who are now considered a threat in their abject destitution.
Perhaps if the death and destruction had happened across the US, Russia or Europe we'd be rid
of the macho men and have someone who put little people before politics.
The strike seems to be more symbolic, rather than of any practical significance. It violated international
law, of course, and dealt a blow to the US-Russia relations, but Trump had found himself in a
sort of zugzwang and he had to make his choice after weighing it out. So he shows that America
is back in the ME game, he proves himself not being Putin's agent silensing critics a bit and
easing the pressure on him, he shows he is not Obama, he gets approval from the Nato allies who
are praising him for the first time ever, he does a bit of muscle flexing bearing in mind his
meeting with Putin. On the down side are the violation of international law (has never been an
obstacle for the US), fuelling tentions with Russia once again (no big deal though), sparking
the reaction from Iran (no big deal either). But long-term effect seems not to be on the table.
What if Russia scraps the air security memorandum in Syria?
We don't know who is responsible for the sarin attack.
Based on accusations and allegations from "activists" the Syrian government are blamed once
again for the use of chemical weapons.
No evidence - not a shred - no independent enquiry or investigation - nothing.
The Syrian forces together with the Kurds in the East and Russia in the West were attacking
and crippling the capability of daesh.
The illegal missile attack by US weakens the Syrians so that both daesh and the so-called "moderate
rebels" (insurgents) will have an advantage.
What was Syria's motive to use gas?
They are winning.
They knew that the use of gas would provoke outrage and a military response by US
On the other hand the insurgents are losing.
They have everything to gain by involving the US to weaken Assad
There are documented cases where the insurgents have bought sarin gas
The insurgents overran and looted government ammunition depots
They knew that the use of gas would provoke outrage and a military response by US
It makes perfect sence that Assad used chemical bombs (that he doesn't even have) just a couple
of days after Trump said removing Assad is not a priority any more, just to destroy a village
he could have more effectively destroy with ordinary bombs, doesn't it?
Back in 2013 when Assad actually had chemical weapons the US made a mistake. They accused him
of having what he actually had thus giving him a chance to give it in. More reliable scenario
is to accuse someone of having what he doesn't have, like with Saddam in 2003. He probably would
be happy to give in the WMD but he didn't have it. Today we see the same old scenario is being
played.
The problem is that the Russians will not let it go that way anymore. We are as close to the WWIII
as never before.
The only reason that Trump bombed Assad was to try to show that he was not elected by Putin and
other Russians.But for that,the most he would have done was say a few bad things about Assad and
even say he was happy if some of the victims were members of ISIS.
By the way what happened about his promise to deal with ISIS from day one,and all the other promises
he made.It even took that idiot GOP senator to invoke the NUCLEAR option to get his Supreme Court
nominee approved.Trump does love that WORD.
You would think a country that has caused nothing but disaster in the ME, nothing but more deaths
and sufferings, a country whose army got their arses kicked in Iraq, and still now in Afghanistan,
a country that gave us ISIS would have learned by now to stop interfering in ME
Well, not quite; it does accomplish the fruits of stupidity. Which is disaster.
Never have I seen the leaders of nations which consider themselves to be civilise, be so insistent
on goading themselves and others to go to war. A senseless war, professedly with the intention
of killing hundreds, if not thousands, and destroying their livelihoods, under the premis of seeking
revenge for the deaths of a hundred people, purportedly by a chemical attack by the Syrian government.
It is absolute madness. So, who will protect the people from the folly and madness of their
leaders, who refuse to make peace, choosing war instead?
It is all so predictable. All the terrorist rebels have got to do from now on is release gas during
any air strike by Russian or Syrian forces, kill as many children as possible, photograph the
result and sit back and wait for the US missiles to be launched in 'retaliation'.
Rather than saving lives, Trump has condemned more to die.
What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that
hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging
the suffering of the Syrian people. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Yes, you're right. It was 'unconstitutional' for a start in that he didn't get Congressional
approval, he didn't get the approval of the UN and he committed an act of war against a sovereign
nation (also a UN member).
Is anyone going to hazard a guess as to what happened to the 36 cruise missiles that didn't
find their target?
I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding
that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot
say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly
haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that
I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would
gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks?
That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
"Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread".
His impetuosity makes me fear, that should he fail to convince China to put pressure on North
Korea, he will carry out his threats to take matters into his own hands.
The major evil is the Americans arming and supporting the Jihadsists since day one of the civil
war and using their propaganda machine to demonize Assad. Russia and Iran are the only 2 countries
legally in Syria at it's request. America is an invader and shows absolutely no regard for international
law. After all who would enforce it? Without America's intervention this civil war would have
been over 6 months after it started, 400,000 more people would be alive and there would be 7 million
less refugees million what gives the US the right to do this in Syria, never mind Afghanistan,
Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, Ukraine?
What if this was rebel jihadists who set off the chemical attack? Or the bombs fell on to a rebel
chemical storage site?
The US has jumped to a very dangerous conclusion here - it took them 6 days to confirm that US
bombs had dropped in Mosul but 1 day to confirm a Syrian government aircraft had specifically
dropped a chemical bomb!?
I'm just going to repeat the comment, as no-one has brought it up in this thread...
They wrote an article about it. They sent "journalists" to the town. According to the journalists
and photos that they took, the 'warehouse' was empty and the gas had radiated from a canister
that was dropped from the air:
Trump should not repeat the mistakes of the previous administrations and drag the USA into
even more prolonged conflict; even more so in view of the fact that we know the so-called 'opposition'
to be a motley of Islamist terror groups
"... This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack was instigated by the supposed allies of the US. ..."
"... Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama warmonger gone now? ..."
No, the USA is just being mindlessly violent. It has spent years supporting terrorist groups
in Syria (both directly and via Saudi Arabia) - it is just a demonstration of US aggression and
hypocrisy.
finally there is a US president that doesn't ignore his own red lines.
That's laughable. Trump crossed his own red line about not intervening in foreign wars. Also
read this:
Even more confounding was Trump's declaration that the Idlib gas attack crossed "many, many
lines – beyond a red line". The comment came only hours after the president had lambasted Barack
Obama for laying down the original red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons in 2012 and then
not attacking when the line was crossed in August 2013.
The US were never bombing ISIL in all seriousness. If they were, they would have joined forces
with Assad and Russia and ISIS would have been vaporized. The truth is rather more complex. ISIL
is funded, supported and directed in its operations by Israeli, Saudi, Qatari and US assets on
the ground in Syria. This was discovered after Aleppo fell. 18 members of the command structure
of Al Nusra/ISIL were discovered in a bunker in East Aleppo while the Syrian army were evacuating
the town. The 'rebels' to whom they gave safe passage - teamed up with those in Idlib and were
responsible for another false flag operation to draw international outrage and US direct attacks
on the Syrian armed forces.
The only people laughing this morning are the head-chopping fascists, that the West hypocritically
claims we must defeat. If anyone can't see that this chemical attack only benefitted Al Nusra
they are either lying or stupid.
I get the feeling he's only done it to say "Look, see, I'm not in bed with Russia". To devert
the attention from the ongoing Russian links investigation.
Assad was finally at the point where he was ready to make his peace with the international community
and continue ruling with their support.
But he somehow managed to snatch failure from the jaws of success.
No wonder the bumbling fool has left his nation in such disarray. Share
Facebook
Twitter
care to explain why he would launch an attack which has not brought the US into direct involvement
in the conflict? Ah yes, he's a "bumbling fool"....that must be it.
This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack
was instigated by the supposed allies of the US.
But this has been the policy of the US and UK for the last 25 years. Perpetual war in middle
east. Surely we cannot blame trump. Trump did not even want to be involved there. But it must
be difficult to be the POTUS and having dozens of lobbyists, advisors, generals all day remidning
you that bombs is the only solution, you end up getting convinced
According to himself he didn't. There's a 2013 tweet where Trump told Obama to "save his powder"
and not get involved in Syria over chemical weapons. Of course now he has the gall to criticize
Obama for leaving a mess when Obama just did what Trump said. Consistently and clearness isn't
exactly Trump's strong suit.
Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama
warmonger gone now?
A passenger plane is shot down by someone, before the last piece hits the ground Russia is hit
with the sanctions - evidence of the crime substituted by orchestrated media shrieks. Someone
uses poisonous gas on civilians and Russian ally is attacked with cruise missiles - evidence of
the crime is substituted by statements given by the only people who were caught using chemical
weapons in Syria and yet another media lynch mob.
We are pushed into war by a bunch of greedy murderous liars. None of them give two fucks about
the Syrians or their children, they want their pipeline through Syria and it will be built even
if it takes a murder of thousands of people. Do you realize what kind of monsters we allow to
rule our lives?
Trump's meeting the Chinese premiere this week, so no doubt he thinks this will send the message
that he's not to be messed with, a man of action etc. Of course the Chinese will be thinking things
like 'idiotic, hasty, premature,' etc. But yes, guided cruise missiles cost a few million a pop,
so spunking a 59 on a dusty Syrian airfield full of (mostly inoperative) ancient rusting Migs
will do the arms suppliers no harm.
"... Ironic that Krugman is cited as a voice for reform - he represents the neo-Keynesian hell we've got stuck in. ..."
"... I'm an economics student at the University of Glasgow, in second year as part of a compulsory course we were taught about alternative economic theories in comparison to Neoclassical models. ..."
"... The course has only been running for a few years but in response students have set up a very similar society to promote alternative thinking on economics. Even just half a semester on Post-Keynesian Economic theory has really opened our eyes to the alternatives within economics. ..."
"... I studied neoclassical 'economics' (it really isn't economics, just garbage) for five years. Began to take my graduate degree in the autumn of 2008 when everything was falling apart and I had no idea why. No clue whatsoever. After my masters degree in neoclassical 'economics' I still had no clue what had happened. ..."
"... Orthodox economics: Ignore money. Hence, ignore debt. Let the overall leverage of the economy increase until Ponzi finance fails and financial crisis begins. The debt deflation that follows means money gets even more concentrated towards the financial/political elite than before the crisis. Neo-feudalism makes way - finally war. ..."
"... Orthodox economists don't understand capitalism. They can't. The long time failed axioms underlying everything else in their theories don't allow them to do that. ..."
I'm an economics student at the University of Glasgow, in second year as part of a compulsory
course we were taught about alternative economic theories in comparison to Neoclassical models.
The course has only been running for a few years but in response students have set up a
very similar society to promote alternative thinking on economics. Even just half a semester on
Post-Keynesian Economic theory has really opened our eyes to the alternatives within economics.
I studied neoclassical 'economics' (it really isn't economics, just garbage) for five years.
Began to take my graduate degree in the autumn of 2008 when everything was falling apart and I
had no idea why. No clue whatsoever. After my masters degree in neoclassical 'economics' I still
had no clue what had happened.
Then I stumbled across Post-Keynesian economics and it took me about six months to dismiss
the neoclassical garbage. If I hadn't studied that garbage for five years it would have taken
me a few days.
Orthodox economics: Ignore money. Hence, ignore debt. Let the overall leverage of the economy
increase until Ponzi finance fails and financial crisis begins. The debt deflation that follows
means money gets even more concentrated towards the financial/political elite than before the
crisis. Neo-feudalism makes way - finally war.
Then the cycle starts again.
Orthodox economists don't understand capitalism. They can't. The long time failed axioms
underlying everything else in their theories don't allow them to do that.
"... This has echoes of a protest by students in 2011 at Harvard when a group of students walked out of the lectures by Dr Gregory Manilow. What has happened to them? ..."
"... Good for them. The economics profession has been dominated by neoliberal theoreticians for far too long. It needs bringing back to the real world. ..."
"... i went to the LSE to study maths and statistics with a sprinkling of economics (my first taste of it at the time). after a few months i was of the opinion it is based on terrible assumptions. e.g. the needs of the average consumer, which are then blown up into fantastical macroeconomical proportions which only led to flawed arguments. The subsequent financial crisis only backed this up. ..."
What a ghastly indictment of Manchester, and other economics departments - obviously being
very economic with their subject. Sounds a bit like the Natural Sciences departments being run
by creationists.
This should be the first class for the whole students in economics.
What are the limits in ecology ecosystem? And what are the needs/capacities for human flourishing?
Adventures in New Economics 2: Donut Economics, Kate Raworth
This is an open/complex map with a compass in values that I've built trying to go through both
main concepts. It's valid for personal development / companies / communities / nations / whole
planet.
This has echoes of a protest by students in 2011 at Harvard when a group of students walked
out of the lectures by Dr Gregory Manilow. What has happened to them?
I personally have observed in other disciplines that teaching tends to be a generation behind
current thinking, Particularly when it has more to do with ideology than science.
Some ten years ago, a movement called the Post-Autistic Ecomoncs Movement had a considerable
influence in Europe but has no doubt disappeared in the face of the greed which is central supporting
feature of today's neoliberalism.
i went to the LSE to study maths and statistics with a sprinkling of economics (my first
taste of it at the time). after a few months i was of the opinion it is based on terrible assumptions.
e.g. the needs of the average consumer, which are then blown up into fantastical macroeconomical
proportions which only led to flawed arguments. The subsequent financial crisis only backed this
up.
I commend this thinking by the students but if I was one of their parents forking out 27k i
would probably tell them to pass the exams they need to and get out and start earning.
LSE is a godawful uni also, unless you have given spawn to gordon gekko dont bother with it.
Alternative theories and models??? Well they are currently practiced by North Korea and these
students will be more than welcomed by the Kim family to ply their trade there.
Actually, "alternative theories" were practiced by South Korea, which has been quite a success
story. It's not either the status quo or state communism, you know.
For an understanding of how we came to have thrust upon us the "Dismal Science" of neo-classical
economics, which took shape in the 1880's - 1890's, I recommend reading "The Corruption of Economics"
by Mason Gaffney.
Essentially, economic thinking was hijacked by the robber barons who through building and funding
universities were able to subvert the teaching of economics to suit their own agenda. Classical
economics with a sound basis of three factors of production was replaced by voodhoo economics
which reduced the three factors of production to only two. Whereas once "land" was a factor of
production in its own right alongside "capital" and "labour", it was magicked away to be incorporated
as "capital" for the purpose of the land owning robber barons.
As anyone with a few braincells would know, "land" is a distinct factor of production in its
own right, and not only that, it is the primary factor since neither "capital" or "labour" would
exist without it. But "land" can exist without both the other two factors which makes it unique
and makes it primary and yet voodhoo economics has managed to hide this fact so well through the
employment of clever mathematics to create an illusion of being a solid discipline.
Neoclassical economics is the idiom of most economic discourse today. It is the paradigm
that bends the twigs of young minds. Then it confines the florescence of older ones, like chicken-wire
shaping a topiary. It took form about a hundred years ago, when Henry George and his reform
proposals were a clear and present political danger and challenge to the landed and intellectual
establishments of the world. Few people realize to what a degree the founders of Neoclassical
economics changed the discipline for the express purpose of deflecting George, discomfiting
his followers, and frustrating future students seeking to follow his arguments. The stratagem
was semantic: to destroy the very words in which he expressed himself.
To most modern readers, probably George seems too minor a figure to have warranted such an
extreme reaction. This impression is a measure of the neo-classicals' success: it is what they
sought to make of him. It took a generation, but by 1930 they had succeeded in reducing him
in the public mind. In the process of succeeding, however, they emasculated the discipline,
impoverished economic thought, muddled the minds of countless students, rationalized free-riding
by landowners, took dignity from labor, rationalized chronic unemployment, hobbled us with
today's counterproductive tax tangle, marginalized the obvious alternative system of public
finance, shattered our sense of community, subverted a rising economic democracy for the benefit
of rent-takers, and led us into becoming an increasingly nasty and dangerously divided plutocracy.
Not one economics graduate have I met that has heard of Henry George but yet they have all
heard of Karl Marx. The robber barons and their useful idiots have certainly achieved what they
set out to do.
As clarification the two paragraphs in italics are excerpts from the "Corruption of Economics"
by Mason Gaffney. The link to Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" is,
http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm
"... Then Economic History was virtually withdrawn from university Economics and other courses so that only the"lies" would be taught backed up by unquestioned (i.e. purely deductive) Mathematics. It is an academic crime ..."
If a viable economic solution emerged from the universities - one which remedied the classical
models and trumped the broken neo-liberal systems, how would we recognise it?
To provide some context - and I am in no way qualified to discuss this topic really but, the
first machines to produce logic emerging from Bletchley park were not fully recognised for their
potential - the computer revolution took place elsewhere. The UK is absolute rubbish at recognising
innovation!
Good luck to the students. I hope many more get involved in this debate.
I taught Economics for forty years and over 30 of those to Singaporean scholars destined to
Oxford, Cambridge and Ivy League universities; in all those years I was aware of the lies I had
to teach in order to pass university entrance exams.
I attempted to follow the thesis that every economic theory however old or new was attempting
to answer a unique contemporary economic problem and therefore only Economic History was of relevance
in understanding a theory be Adam Smith or Keynes or even (unacademically) Thatcherism.
My students found all such information useless to passing Economics exams but interesting for
"life".
Then Economic History was virtually withdrawn from university Economics and other courses
so that only the"lies" would be taught backed up by unquestioned (i.e. purely deductive) Mathematics.
It is an academic crime.
"... Neoliberal economics not only led to the crash of 2007/8 it is continuing to wreak havoc. A
good current example is pension schemes - something we will depend on one day. They are valued using
the purest form of free market thinking: the efficient markets hypothesis - the idea that asset markets
always perfectly embody all relevant information. It is akin to belief in magic. ..."
"... It is amazing to read how narrow economics education is in modern Britain. It is not only intellectually
unenlightened and literally dangerous, given the power many economics graduates can wield, amplified
by the extraordinary sums and resources they manage, it also does a great disservice to people who are
entitled to a proper education which, clearly, they are not receiving in this monotheistic model. ..."
"... It reminds me precisely of the so-called "religious education" I received in Ireland which
was nothing of the sort. All I got was instruction in Catholic doctrine and ethics; there was no instruction
in the beliefs of any other Christian sects, let alone what goes on in the other major world religions
such as Hinduism, Judaism, or Islam. What I know about them I taught myself in later life. ..."
"... It seems that the same shameful parochial narrowness, intellectual provincialism, and "one
true religion" ethic prevails in British economic so-called "education". ..."
"... On another matter, the revelation that economists "ignore empirical evidence that contradicts
mainstream theories" destroys any notion that economics is a science, a silly claim I have always opposed.
All that it reveals is that economists have no idea what science is. ..."
Neoliberal economics not only led to the crash of 2007/8 it is continuing to wreak havoc.
A good current example is pension schemes - something we will depend on one day. They are valued
using the purest form of free market thinking: the efficient markets hypothesis - the idea that
asset markets always perfectly embody all relevant information. It is akin to belief in magic.
Yet many professionals who run pension schemes and the government regulator all support it's
use because it suits them - it deflects responsibility from them while they continue to be paid.
It's effects on society are disastrous as it leads us to believe are insolvent. The government
and actuarial profession accepted all this and enshrined it in law.
A topical example is the universities pension scheme the USS which BBC Newsnight and Radio
4 have just told us has a 'black hole' of a deficit.
Many of us thought that the EMH would ditched after its spectacular failure but no. Zombie
theories continue on their path of destruction.
It is amazing to read how narrow economics education is in modern Britain. It is not only
intellectually unenlightened and literally dangerous, given the power many economics graduates
can wield, amplified by the extraordinary sums and resources they manage, it also does a great
disservice to people who are entitled to a proper education which, clearly, they are not receiving
in this monotheistic model.
It reminds me precisely of the so-called "religious education" I received in Ireland which
was nothing of the sort. All I got was instruction in Catholic doctrine and ethics; there was
no instruction in the beliefs of any other Christian sects, let alone what goes on in the other
major world religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, or Islam. What I know about them I taught myself
in later life.
It seems that the same shameful parochial narrowness, intellectual provincialism, and "one
true religion" ethic prevails in British economic so-called "education". Intellectuals ought
to be utterly ashamed to propagate such blinkered views. Anyone who has never heard of Keynes
is culturally illiterate; that an economics student, in particular, has never heard of Keynes
is a disgrace.
On another matter, the revelation that economists "ignore empirical evidence that contradicts
mainstream theories" destroys any notion that economics is a science, a silly claim I have always
opposed. All that it reveals is that economists have no idea what science is.
"... It was an eye opener that Universities are teaching only the neo-liberal model as the core syllabus. This is not education but indoctrination. Fair play to the group then who were passionate about the need for change and realise that it is up to them to effect that change. Good luck to them, I hope that they are successful in re-claiming education as a means of furthering understanding through questioning prevailing orthodoxy. ..."
"... Good luck. You may need it. You will be surprised at how much opposition you encounter and how remorseless and relentless it is. Look up the book "Political economy now!", about the experience at the University of Sydney. ..."
"... Economics is so discredited a subject that even students who have barley started studying realise that - with a few exceptions like Stiglitz or Schiller - it is total fabricated bullshit paid for by people with enough money to benefit from the lies it spreads. ..."
"... One of the biggest lies ever told the free market, as its never ever been a reality. ..."
"... Economists, like scientists and the rest of us, are always employed by someone and therein lies the problem: the conflict between what we believe to be the truth and what we are paid to do (or teach) to keep our job. Many economists (like investors & politicians) knew the crash would burst at some point but only those who enjoyed a seat outside the system would benefit from its prediction. ..."
Few mainstream economists predicted the global financial crash of 2008 and academics have been accused
of acting as cheerleaders for the often labyrinthine financial models behind the crisis. Now a growing
band of university students are plotting a quiet revolution against orthodox free-market teaching,
arguing that alternative ways of thinking have been pushed to the margins.
Economics undergraduates at the University of Manchester have formed the
Post-Crash Economics Society ,
which they hope will be copied by universities across the country. The organisers criticise university
courses for doing little to explain why economists failed to warn about the global financial crisis
and for having too heavy a focus on training students for City jobs.
A growing number of top economists, such as Ha-Joon Chang, who teaches economics at Cambridge
University, are backing the students.
Next month the society plans to publish a manifesto proposing sweeping reforms to the University
of Manchester's curriculum, with the hope that other institutions will follow suit.
Joe Earle, a spokesman for the Post-Crash
Economics Society and
a final-year undergraduate, said academic departments were "ignoring the crisis" and that, by neglecting
global developments and critics of the free market such as Keynes and Marx, the study of economics
was "in danger of losing its broader relevance".
Chang, who is a reader in the political economy of development at Cambridge, said he agreed with
the society's premise. The teaching of economics was increasingly confined to arcane mathematical
models, he said. "Students are not even prepared for the commercial world. Few [students] know what
is going on in China and how it influences the global economic situation. Even worse, I've met American
students who have never heard of Keynes."
In June a network of young economics students, thinkers and writers set up
Rethinking Economics , a campaign group
to challenge what they say is the predominant narrative in the subject.
Earle said students across Britain were being taught neoclassical economics "as if it was the
only theory".
He said: "It is given such a dominant position in our modules that many students aren't even aware
that there are other distinct theories out there that question the assumptions, methodologies and
conclusions of the economics we are taught."
Multiple-choice and maths questions dominate the first two years of economics degrees, which Earle
said meant most students stayed away from modules that required reading and essay-writing, such as
history of economic thought. "They think they just don't have the skills required for those sorts
of modules and they don't want to jeopardise their degree," he said. "As a consequence, economics
students never develop the faculties necessary to critically question, evaluate and compare economic
theories, and enter the working world with a false belief about what economics is and a knowledge
base limited to neoclassical theory."
In the decade before the 2008 crash, many economists dismissed warnings that property and stock
markets were overvalued. They argued that markets were correctly pricing shares, property and exotic
derivatives in line with economic models of behaviour. It was only when the US sub-prime mortgage
market unravelled that banks realised a collective failure to spot the bubble had wrecked their finances.
In his 2010 documentary Inside Job, Charles Ferguson highlighted how US academics had produced
hundreds of reports in support of the types of high-risk trading and debt-fuelled consumption that
triggered the crash.
Some leading economists have criticised university economics teaching, among them Paul Krugman,
a Nobel prize winner and professor at Princeton university who has attacked the complacency of economics
education in the US.
In an article for the New York Times in 2009,
Krugman wrote
: "As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook
beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth."
Adam Posen, head of the Washington-based thinktank the Peterson Institute, said universities ignore
empirical evidence that contradicts mainstream theories in favour of "overly technical nonsense".
City economists attacked Joseph Stiglitz, the former World Bank chief economist, and Olivier Blanchard,
the current International Monetary Fund chief economist, when they criticised western governments
for cutting investment in the wake of the crash.
A Manchester University spokeman said that, as at other university courses around the world, economics
teaching at Manchester "focuses on mainstream approaches, reflecting the current state of the discipline".
He added: "It is also important for students' career prospects that they have an effective grounding
in the core elements of the subject.
"Many students at Manchester study economics in an interdisciplinary context alongside other social
sciences, especially philosophy, politics and sociology. Such students gain knowledge of different
kinds of approaches to examining social phenomena many modules taught by the department centre
on the use of quantitative techniques. These could just as easily be deployed in mainstream or non-mainstream
contexts." Since you're here
we've got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer
are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations,
we haven't put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can . So you can see why
we need to ask for your help. The Guardian's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of
time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because
it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much
more secure.
I particularly like: Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist. and
Economists are like computers. They need to have facts punched into them.
But my favourite is Mathematics brought rigor to Economics. Unfortunately, it also brought
mortis.
Good luck to this group. They are on the right lines.
Agreed, but they are fighting an uphill battle. Just look at how few (accademic) heterodox economists
actually work in economics departments. I think almost every heterdox economist I know works in
an non-economics school/faculty (i.e. schools/facultues of the environment, sustainability, sociology,
land use etc).
I spoke with some of the Post Crash group at a Peoples Assembly meeting recently. It was an
eye opener that Universities are teaching only the neo-liberal model as the core syllabus. This
is not education but indoctrination. Fair play to the group then who were passionate about the
need for change and realise that it is up to them to effect that change. Good luck to them, I
hope that they are successful in re-claiming education as a means of furthering understanding
through questioning prevailing orthodoxy.
Well said that man. Very well said. Unquestioning indoctrination has led us (all countries in
the world be they active participants or 'victims) to this sorry pass.
Basic economics should include the very basic idea that money is no more and no less than a
tool. If you strip money / the tool away from folk then they will either try and take your tool
from you or, if life becomes savage enough, they will fall by the wayside.
Does this generation and successive ones really want to walk over the bodies of others?
Without a profound readjustment and realignment of economic thinking, that is precisely what
is in store. Indeed, it is what has been set in motion already. Time for an urgent re-think before
more bodies litter the highways.
I heard recently about one man who had had such a re-think.
He was an American financial executive who was asked why he was taking early retirement and
going off to live in a little valley in the hills.
He replied: "Well, it is a lovely property with great scenery, fertile land and its own microhydroelectricity-----but
the really big attraction is that it puts 300 miles of armed hillbillies between me and the nearest
city"!!.
I do hope the chap in question doesn't end up regretting that he has deliberately placed himself
into a situation where there are 300 miles of armed hillbillies between himself and the nearest
city.
Good luck. You may need it. You will be surprised at how much opposition you encounter and
how remorseless and relentless it is. Look up the book "Political economy now!", about the experience
at the University of Sydney.
Exactly - the clue is in this statement from the University authorities...
It is also important for students' career prospects that they have an effective grounding
in the core elements of the subject.
Or in other words...
Students should be familar with the free market fair tales thrown up by rich, greedy bankers
and the right wing in order to earn money pandering the "correct" line
Economics is so discredited a subject that even students who have barley started studying
realise that - with a few exceptions like Stiglitz or Schiller - it is total fabricated bullshit
paid for by people with enough money to benefit from the lies it spreads.
One of the biggest lies ever told the free market, as its never ever been a reality.
Restrictions or prejudices ensure this, so such a philosophy deserves tearing up just like
their supporters who believe community and care are bad ideals. They call it socialism but it
is far from being a dirty word as it is about looking after all people on a more equal level,
so as to ensure the most vulnerable people in society are not left in a helpless and hopeless
position.
I heard recently about one man who had had such a re-think.
He was an American financial executive who was asked why he was taking early retirement and going
off to live in a little valley in the hills.
He replied: "Well, it is a lovely property with great scenery, fertile land and its own microhydroelectricity-----but
the really big attraction is that it puts 300 miles of armed hillbillies between me and the nearest
city"!!.
Thatcherist 'Reaganomics' was their response to the hissy fit Maggie threw at the 'grubby little
terrorist' Nelson Mandela when he started to put the kibosh on the elites cash cow of South African
apartheid, 4 decades of 'starving the beast' and media complicity in pushing the benefits of supply
side while pruning demand to the core by cutting back public investment which is the only source
of high velocity currency in a debt based economy where cash is simply printed to commission public
gods, services and infrastructure for a civilised society and withdrawn through tax to mitigate
inflation.
Only as we approach their ideology of fiscal apartheid do the courtiers perceive that without
demand a bleak future awaits everyone but the very few already excessively wealthy.
Economists, like scientists and the rest of us, are always employed by someone and therein
lies the problem: the conflict between what we believe to be the truth and what we are paid to
do (or teach) to keep our job. Many economists (like investors & politicians) knew the crash would
burst at some point but only those who enjoyed a seat outside the system would benefit from its
prediction.
36%-40% going to "financial institutions"
51%-52% going to "individuals", i.e. mostly "rich individuals"
5%-9% going to "manufacturing/productive industry".
It's hardly surprising we're such an unproductive - fiancialised and individualised nation is
it? Nor is it surprising that London generally "flourishes" as one of the most financialised and
individualised cities in the world.
This isn't 'freedom'. It's reaping what we have sowed for the last thirty plus years of neoliberal
politics and economics. It's as centrally planned as anything under the Soviet Union, only with capitalist
distribution, i.e. it is pure state capitalism, or engineered capitalism, and yet they tell us society
cannot be 'engineered', or 'structured', and that this is utopian dreaming. They are the utopian
dreamers.
London is the financial arm of the Washington consensus - a part of the EU, and a part of the
UK, but barely so - or semi-detached. The City of London from which all financial capital flows is
effectively a tax haven, no different to the Channel Islands. It's all a huge political and social
mess - exactly what the economic elite want.
SOCIALISM An Economic and Sociological Analysis by
LUDWIG VON MISES 1951
[p.56, n.1] The term
'Communism' signifies just the same as 'Socialism'.
[p.64] Collectivism is ... the weapon of those who
wish to kill mind and thought.
[p.105] It is not marriage which keeps woman
inwardly unfree, but the fact that her sexual character
demands surrender to a man and that her love for
husband and children consumes her best energies. There
is no human law to prevent the woman who looks for
happiness in a career from renouncing love and
marriage. But those who do not renounce them are not
left with sufficient strength to master life as a man
may master it. It is the fact that sex possesses her
whole personality, and not the facts of marriage and
family, which enchains woman. To take away a woman's
children and put them in an institution is to take away
part of her life; and children are deprived of the most
far-reaching influences when they are torn from the
bosom of the family. The segregated educational
institution breeds homosexuality and neurosis. the
proposal to treat men and women as radically equal, to
regulate sexual intercourse by the State, to put
infants into public nursing homes at birth and to
ensure that children and parents remain quite unknown
to each other ...
[p.119] Without calculation, economic activity is
impossible. Since under Socialism economic calculation
is impossible, under Socialism there can be no economic
activity in our sense of the word.
[p.122] Socialism is the renunciation of rational
economy.
[p.124] Economic activity is rational activity.
the sphere of economic activity is coterminous with the
sphere of rational action.
[p.13] The theory of economic calculation shows that
in the socialistic community economic calculation would
be impossible.
[p.132] Exchange relations in productive goods can
only be established on the basis of private property in
the means of production.
[p.134] To prove that economic calculation would be
impossible in the socialist community is to prove also
that Socialism is impracticable. Every attempt to
carry it out will lead to syndicalism or, by some other
route, to chaos, which will quickly dissolve the
society, based upon the division of labour, into tiny
autarkous groups.
By age 30, about 22% of American sons will be working for the same employer at the same time as
their fathers. But how does that compare with other countries?
Who's your daddy? Nepotism throughout the world. Data: World Economic forum.
Hi everyone, how are you? If your name is Ivanka (there really aren't that many of you), then
maybe you had a great week. Maybe you got a new job with your dad with perks like access to classified
information from the US government (chances are much higher if your last name is Trump).
Which brings me to the subject of this week's DIY fact check: nepotism. Let's find out how many
Americans get a $110 denim shoe in thanks to their old man. And while we're at it, let's find out
whether nepotism is more prevalent in the United States than other countries.
Step 1: Find out how many people get a job with the help of their father. I know, I know, I know
– "what about the nepotistic mothers?" I hear you ask (or at least I hope you're asking). Well, being
able to influence a company's employment decisions requires power and, for a long time, most women
haven't had that kind of power in the workplace. So no historical data, buddy.
I Google "nepotism US data" and get nowhere. So I search for "nepotism statistics" instead (nothing),
"nepotism study" (nada) and "nepotism prevalence" (zilch).
After a bunch more dead ends I spot that the Census Bureau is quoted in a number of places,so
I add that to my search. I end up with this 2014 research paper. It turns out that I was struggling
to find data because the Census Bureau doesn't use the word nepotism. Instead, it titled the paper
Fathers, Children, and the Intergenerational Transmission of Employers. Interesting.
The study finds that "fathers and sons work together at the same employer more commonly than would
be predicted by mere chance". That chance part is important, not least because when people get caught,
they might claim it was coincidence rather than corruption.
According to its analysis of data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the Census
Bureau found that by the time they're 30, about 22% of sons will be working for the same employer
at the same time as their fathers (and an extra 6% of sons work for an employer that their dads recently
worked for but left).
That's a lot higher than I would have thought, but maybe I had lower expectations of getting help
from my dad because I'm a woman. The same study found that only 13% of daughters work at the same
place as their dads by the time they're 30 (and an extra 4% work for a former employer of their dads).
Lucky Ivanka, eh?
Step 2: Find out if nepotism is more or less common elsewhere in the world. Yet again, I really
struggle here – it's almost like governments don't have an interest in publishing data on national
nepotism.
I end up finding a PDF floating on the internet. It's just one page, with no date, no sources,
but it seems to be exactly what I need: a table of international data titled "impact of nepotism".
Now I need to figure out where it came from. After getting nowhere for a while, I do something you
should try sometime too: I ask for help.
Remember, the results you see on the internet are often different from what someone else will
see because search engines take into account things like your location and web history. So I ask
my colleague Jan Diehm to try to search for the title of the table, too – "1.29 impact of nepotism"
(please don't send all your research requests to poor Jan – you could ask anyone to repeat your steps
and see if they have more luck than you).
She finds something I didn't: the table is mentioned in this research paper, along with a note
that it comes from the World Economic Forum's 2006-2007 indicators. That's all the information she
needed to be able to track down the original PDF.
There are a couple of things we should keep in mind if we want to figure out how reliable these
numbers are. For one thing, they're quite old (it doesn't look like the World Economic Forum still
measures nepotism), so things might have changed a lot. When these figures were collected, George
W Bush was president and Gmail was only two years old.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this survey doesn't measure nepotism itself, but rather
the perception of nepotism among business executives that were surveyed in 110 countries. That's
not ideal, but it's understandable given the difficulty of measuring illicit activity accurately.
That said, the list is interesting. It ranks countries on their levels of nepotism from seven
(no influence) to one (enormous influence). The US has a score of 4.2, putting it in 63rd place out
of 125 countries evaluated, behind Kazakhstan, Egypt and South Africa (to give just a few arbitrary
examples) and waaay behind Germany and the UK (to give a few more). The Czech Republic, where Ivanka's
mother was born, received the same score as the United States.
I suggest you peruse the list in full, especially if you're thinking about setting up an international
business.
The graphic on this article was amended on 24 March 2017 after criticism from readers in the comment
thread below. We regret any offense the original version caused.
Would you like to see something fact-checked? Send me your questions! [email protected]
/ @MonaChalabi
"... Stewart criticized Republicans leaders such as Senator Mitch McConnell and the House speaker, Paul Ryan, for the hypocrisy of ensuring the government is stuck at a standstill and then claiming that government doesn't get anything done. ..."
"... "They're not draining the swamp," he said. "McConnell and Ryan – those guys are the swamp." He also added: "I will guarantee you Republicans are going to come to Jesus now about the power of government. ..."
"... The same country with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected Barack Obama ..."
"He's not a Republican. He's a repudiation of Republicans. But they will reap the benefit of his
victory, in all of their cynicism," Stewart told
CBS's This Morning co-host Charlie Rose on Thursday.
Stewart criticized
Republicans leaders
such as Senator Mitch McConnell and the House speaker, Paul Ryan, for the hypocrisy of ensuring the
government is stuck at a standstill and then claiming that government doesn't get anything done.
"They're not draining the swamp," he said. "McConnell and Ryan – those guys are the swamp." He
also added: "I will guarantee you Republicans are going to come to Jesus now about the power of government.
... ... ...
"I don't believe we are a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago," Stewart
told Rose.
"The same country with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and
resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected
Barack Obama," said Stewart.
The comedian also criticized liberals for lumping all Trump supporters into the category of "racist".
... ... ...
"Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible
qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They're
afraid of their insurance premiums," he said. "In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating
people as a monolith. Don't look at Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would
be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also
real in our country."
In theory, in the longer term, as robotics becomes the norm rather than
the exception, there will be no advantage in chasing cheap labour around
the world. Given ready access to raw materials, the labour costs of
manufacturing in Birmingham should be no different to the labour costs
in Beijing. This will require the democratisation of the ownership of
technology. Unless national governments develop commonly owned
technology the 1% will truly become the organ grinders and everyone else
the monkeys. One has only to look at companies like Microsoft and Google
to see a possible future - bigger than any single country and answerable
to no one. Common ownership must be the future. Deregulation and market
driven economics are the road technological serfdom.
Except that the raw materials for steel production are available
in vast quantities in China.
You are also forgetting land. The
power remains with those who own it. Most of Central London is
still owned by the same half dozen families as in 1600.
Reply
Share
You can only use robotics in countries that have the labour with the
skills to maintain them.Robots do not look after themselves they need
highly skilled technicians to keep them working. I once worked for a
Japanese company and they only used robots in the higher wage high skill
regions. In low wage economies they used manual labour and low tech
products.
"... Statistics can be made to slant any way you intend. ..."
"... Stupid survey leads to dumber article and fucking ridiculous headline. Standard Guardian opinion I guess. ..."
"... Seriously can you perhaps stop being so clickbaity? I've already lost the Independent because it went full on lefty Buzzfeed listical "you won't believe what they did to Trump when the lights went out". Don't follow them downwards. ..."
"... On both side of the Atlantic, we don't have a 'democracy', we have an elected monarchy. The trouble is, this monarchy gets itself elected on the basis of lies, money and suppression. For a few brief years after WWII, there was an attempt to hold executives to account, but neoliberals put paid to all that. Nowadays, it's just as if nothing had changed since Henry VIII's time. ..."
"... What we gave the ordinary Russian was neo-liberalism and they got screwed by it. Capitalisms greatest trick was to convince the many that it & democracy are the same thing. When actually, on many levels, they are totally at odds with each other. ..."
Statistics can be made to slant any way you intend. Essentially can be be used as another form of
lie and propganada
Lawrence Douglas
But, the result changed when the data were narrowed to those who identified themselves as Trump
supporters: 51% agreed that Trump should be able to overturn court decisions. 33% disagreed. 16%
were not sure.
It is tempting to attribute this difference between Trump supporters and others simply to the fact
that the president's supporters prefer a more authoritarian style of government, prioritize social
order, like strong rulers, and worry about maintaining control in a world they perceive to be filled
with threats and on the verge of chaos.
As the PPP's survey reveals, Trump is appealing to a remarkably receptive audience in his attempts
to rule by decree – and many are no longer attached to the rule of law and/or democracy. Other studies
confirm these findings. One such study found a dramatic decline in the percentage of people who say
it is "essential" to live in a democracy.
When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how "essential" it is for them "to live in a democracy,"
72% of Americans born before World War II check "10," the highest value. But, the millennial generation
(those born since 1980) "has grown much more indifferent." Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief
about the importance of democracy.
And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate
for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed.
While millennials may be politically liberal in their policy preferences, they have come of age
in a time of political paralysis in democratic institutions, declining civility in democratic dialogue,
and dramatically increased anxiety about economic security.
These findings suggest that we can no longer take for granted that our fellow citizens will stand
up for the rule of law and democracy. That's why, while President Trump's behavior has riveted the
media and the public, our eyes should not only be focused on him but on this larger – and troubling
- trend.
If the rule of law and democracy are to survive in America we will need to address the decline in
the public's understanding of, and support for both. While we celebrate the Ninth Circuit's decision
on Trump's ban, we also must initiate a national conversation about democracy and the rule of law.
Civics education, long derided, needs to be revived.
Schools, civic groups, and the media must to go back to fundamentals and explain what basic American
political values entail and why they are desirable. Defenders of democracy and the rule of law must
take their case to the American people and remind them of the Founders' admonition that: "If men
were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor
internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered
by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control
the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
We need to remember that our freedom from an arbitrary or intrusive government depends on the rule
of law and a functioning democracy. We need to rehabilitate both – before this crisis of faith worsens.
Austin Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College
"There is much to celebrate in the court decision against President Trump's immigration
ban. It was a stirring victory for the rule of law and reaffirmation of the independence
of the judiciary."
A stirring victory of the rule of law? Hardly. More like an extraordinary act of politicised
justice. And an orchestrated one at that. In my opinion that is, and as I see it at this point
in time and from what I am able to discern.
No. I do not see not see any stirring victories for the rule of law here here. Certainly
no courage of truth or justice. Nor, as it happens, do I like this travel ban. Nevertheless,
the court's ruling seems to me to be wrong since the constitution gives the president the power
to enforce blanket bans against countries believed to pose a threat.
I cannot see how the ban could justifiably be said to be aimed specifically at Muslims since
it does not concern some 90 percent of the world's Muslim population. So it looks very much
like a political decision from the 9th Circuit Court – and now San Francisco - in a tug of
war between Democrats and Republicans.
I am somehow reminded of the final "Yes we can" in Obama's farewell speech and of a sore
loser – the vindictive Mrs Clinton. Some smooth transfer of power.
The very fact that expert analysts are already sizing up what will be the Supreme Court's
decision in terms of breaking the stalemate between 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats provides
a perfect illustration of the politicisation of the judiciary at the highest level. Compatibly
with this, Democrats are continuing to block Gorsuch's nomination.
And compatibly with this the illusion of salutary Rawlsian** apolitical amnesiacs on the
part of the judiciary disperses like Scotch mist.
Somehow I have a clear mental picture of a newspaper editor, no one in particular, sitting
back in his chair with a smug smile 'Look how we managed to swing that one', I hear him say.
The principal protagonists here, overshadowing the US lawcourts, are the mainstream media.
A power never to be underestimated, especially when the choir is singing in full maledictory
and mephitic unison.
**The reference is to A Theory of Justice, the monumental work on philosophy of law by John
Rawls. It casts damning light on judicial impartiality by focusing on distorting criteria affecting
juries. Worth reading in the context of attacks on the impartiality of the judiciary in US
lawcourts taking place right now. And also in the wake of recent attacks on the judiciary in
Britain over Brexit.
Interesting that Clinton's 52% is regarded as a God-given mandate where as the 52%
for Leave is unfair as the voters were "too old/uneducated/outside London"
In both campaigns if more people my age (26) had actually bothered to vote then the results
would probably be very different.
Only 53% of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump
to make the right decisions for the United States."
But that is an utterly assinine question to ask anyone!
"Making decisions for the United States" suggests setting policy. The judges Trump
is so angry with aren't making policy decisions, they are
interpreting
the laws
that already exist.
Laws without and independent judiciary are not laws at all, they are just whims of
whoever or whatever is in power. Might as well ask people do you prefer to live in a
country that follows its laws or do you want to live at the whim of an irrational despot
with irresponsible power who can do whatever the hell he pleases.
This survey is clearly a case of garbage in garbage out. Which is a pity, because
the subject is an important one.
In a common law system, like those of Britain and the US, judges do make law. If there is no
relevant legislation and no precedent, the judge is
required
to make new law in order
to rule on the case, which will then be cited as precedent by future courts. In a civil law
system, like those of continental Europe, judges merely interpret (and generalise, where necessary)
the rules set out in statutes and codes, and have less scope to innovate.
Of course, the
recent case over Trump's immigration plans has been based on interpretations of the constitution
though, but even interpretations are political (hence why the balance of power between liberals
and conservatives on the Supreme Court is considered such a big issue).
After nearly 40 years of corporate, lobbyist controlled politics, it's little surprise the
younger generation have no faith in democracy. What on earth is the point in voting for two
shades of the same shit?
You could argue that the US has never been a democracy. It is a strange democracy that allowed
slavery, or the later segregation in the south, or that has systematically overlooked the rust
belt taking all the gold for the liberal coasts.
It seems democracy is simply a way of deciding who the dictator should be. Not unlike the U.K.
Either.
If you were black in Alabama in the early 60s I don't think you would have enjoyed any more freedom,
respect or control than your Russian counterpart at that time
democracy is, of course, the best form of governance but in practice we see it benefit the wealthy
who unhindered can rob
the poor, only a socialist government can
usher in a true government to do so it may
be needed to have an authoritarian regime
True socialism is a form of government which sounds wonderful in theory. In practice it has never
successfully worked anywhere in the world. It does not take account of human nature.
Sorry but in the authoritarian nominatively socialist governments of the past the poor were as
robbed off the fruit of their labour and their dignity as they are today.
It's effectively a FPTP system that means you have a choice from only two parties. Even if someone
could challenge they'd need to be a billionaire to do so. America is no democracy.
Germany under Adolf Hitler before he started WWII was not a zillion times worse than any of the
contemporary powers in Western Europe. Neither was Franco's Spain. Looking in other areas of the
globe and further away from the West, what about South Korea under Park Chung Hee? Would you call
his dictatorship bad when he brought South Korea up to become one of the Asian 5 Tigers?
Germany under Adolf Hitler before he started WWII was not a zillion times worse than any
of the contemporary powers in Western Europe
Is that supposed to be a joke? If so, it's in very poor taste.
My parents grew up in Nazi Germany. Yes, it was a zillion times worse. Political opponents
were routinely murdered. There was no rule of law. Minorities, gay people etc were imprisoned,
tortured, murdered, expelled.
Germany was broke, following their defeat in WWI; people were poor, humiliated,insecure
and frightened for the future. In other words, the classic breeding ground for demagogues and
extremists.
After WWII, the Allies had learned their lesson and made sure that Germany should, for everyone's
security, be helped to prosper.
what about South Korea under Park Chung Hee? Would you call his dictatorship bad when he brought
South Korea up to become one of the Asian 5 Tigers?
The Friemanite right adored him and
many of his equally repressive and dictatorial successors (just as they did Pinochet, Suharto
(deemed by Transparency International to be the most corrupt leader in modern history to boot)
and endless South American juntas etc).
Every one else saw him for what he was - an authoritarian who had political opponents tortured
and killed and who banned any form of protest.
And is it particularly surprising that Trump voters tend towards anti democratic authoritarianism?
My dad and two of my brothers voted for Trump. Like most Americans, they detest authoritarian
governments. I sincerely doubt you know any Trump voters - let alone ones who favor authoritarianism.
In a cross-section of Americans, only
53%
of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump to make the right
decisions for the United States."
38%
said they trusted Donald Trump more than our country's
judges, and
9%
were undecided.
But
, the result changed when the data were narrowed to those who identified themselves
as Trump supporters:
51%
agreed that Trump should be able to overturn court decisions.
33%
disagreed.
16%
were not sure.
The results are significantly the same, the
But
implies something different.
besides, the results are *not* significantly the same. Fauteuil's first sentence suggests that
53% (more than a Brexit majority, hence Will of the People) of Americans support the judiciary
over the presidency. In contrast, a majority of Trump supporters, not unnaturally, take the opposite
view.
Statistics can be made to slant any way you intend.
So let's break this down: 51% of Trump supporters think he can do what he pleases. 51% means
one quarter of those who voted in the US general election.
If we estimate that only two-thirds of the electorate voted, that means in reality, probably
less than 16% of total potential voters think this way.
Stupid survey leads to dumber article and fucking ridiculous headline. Standard Guardian opinion
I guess.
Seriously can you perhaps stop being so clickbaity? I've already lost the Independent because
it went full on lefty Buzzfeed listical "you won't believe what they did to Trump when the lights
went out". Don't follow them downwards.
On both side of the Atlantic, we don't have a 'democracy', we have an elected monarchy. The
trouble is, this monarchy gets itself elected on the basis of lies, money and suppression. For
a few brief years after WWII, there was an attempt to hold executives to account, but neoliberals
put paid to all that. Nowadays, it's just as if nothing had changed since Henry VIII's time.
Sad that a new, stupid generation have to learn the truth of Churchill's dictum that 'Democracy
is the worst form of government, except for all the others'.
Sincerely hope for all of us that
they don't have to learn this the hard way.
I say this speaking as someone whose parents fled Nazi Germany, and who also spent time with
relatives in the former East Germany prior to the wall coming down. Life under a dictatorship,
whether of the right or left, is no picnic.
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others'.
But is it democracy's
fault when the option as to which kind of government we can choose is so narrow? Scary as it may
sound, I think that the majority of young people would swap democracy just for some stability
& safety. But what they fail to realize is that it's not democracy that's at the fault - but our
form of capitalism. Look what happened in Russian when the wall came down & the free market rushed
in & totally screwed over the ordinary Russian. Putin was, to some extent, a reaction to this.
His strong man image was something they thought would help them.
What we gave the ordinary
Russian was neo-liberalism and they got screwed by it. Capitalisms greatest trick was to convince
the many that it & democracy are the same thing. When actually, on many levels, they are totally
at odds with each other.
Laws aren't final, they evolve with the needs of society. While I support this decidion I find
all of this a bit silly and typical of that strange world.. "this is the law, therefor blabla.."
I don't get why people even decide to study it in university. Most law students are like : "Yeah
I don't know what to pick. Lets do Law, it'll give me a good job". Empty stuff really..
Can someone please explain how the court has over ruled the executive order? From what I understand
it's because it would harm some Americans - but does that mean using the same logic courts can
undo tax increases, spending cuts, changes in abortion law? Or if the travel ban was instead passed
by congress it would then be beyond the remit of judges?
One example given was schools. Banning students from state universities, or professors, by preventing
them from entering the country, was damaging to the schools capacity to earn money ( in tuition
fees) and provide state education. Then there was the example of forcibly separating families.
But this part of the ruling does not exist on it's own, it goes together with another part
of the ruling, which was that there was no good reason for this action, since the Government had
failed to provide that any person from any of these countries was a threat - which was the reason
given in the executive order. For this and other reasons the Executive order was deemed to be
not legally enforceable.
Another problem is that this was an executive order, just a piece of paper signed by Trump,
and the President does not have sole authority to make laws, there is also the judiciary and legislative
branches - the courts and congress. If the travel ban had been passed by congress then the courts
would probably have not been able to overturn it. In this game of stone scissors paper, the executive
doesn't beat the other two - it needs one of them to rubber-stamp the decision if challenged.
The argument that a presidential order should be all powerful and must be obeyed regardless of
whether it was legal or not, was deemed by the judges to be anti constutional and thrown out of
court.
The other examples you give of tax increases or spending cuts or abortion might indeed cause
harm, but providing they are not anti-constitutional, and they get through congress, and are not
illegal, the harm wouldn't be taken into account.
I would not have voted for Trump. I would not have voted for quite a few American Presidents before
him either.
But the hyperbole about Trump is being overdone.
The USA is one of the oldest democracies on earth, and, one of only ten nations that have lasted
as democracies for more than a century.
By overstating Trump's impact, you are not helping.
It is actually a kind of hysteria. I remember Senator McCarthy's communist hysteria, and also
the marijuana hysteria which swept through schools when I was a child in the 1950s.
I'm a little surprised that there seems to be less debate in the USA about the electoral college
for the presidency than I thought likely. Of course, the electoral college is a completely redundant
if it never leads to a different result from a straightforward popular vote. As I understand it,
the electoral college is designed to ensure that smaller states have a voice greater than their
population size alone would deliver.
But in a nationwide poll, on a binary issue, such as the election of the president or Brexit,
I would have thought that each vote should count equally. SNP supporters might differ in this
view, as would presumably US Democratic Party supporters.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be
led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.- H.
L. Mencken.
Only 53% of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump to make
the right decisions for the United States." In this cross-section of Americans, 38% said they
trusted Donald Trump more than our country's judges. 9% were undecided.
This means absolutely nothing regarding whether people support democracy and the rule of law.
Were the results about Obama, the very same result would probably be interpreted as racism
by the liberal media.
Another poll from Public Polling Policy says that by a margin of 51/23 Trump supporters agree
that the Bowling Green massacre shows that Trump's travel ban is a good idea.
That's shows what
you're up against and also why both Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer 'misspeak' so often.
A new national survey suggests that we can no longer take for granted that our fellow citizens
will stand up for the rule of law and democracy
Dear Austin, let me educate you a bit about the basics. The rule of law and democracy cannot
both exist simultaneously in one society. The former has never been an American tradition. Read
Tocqueville.
The rule of law is characteristic of a totalitarian state where it is enforced by civil servant.
The basic principle of such a state were described by Shang Yang 2400 years ago: a civil servant
obeys the law, regardless of the will of his superior. Everyone obeys the law from top to bottom.
In democracy people are judged by courts of jury. Which rule as they like, representing the
public opinion, not the written law. Constitution doesn't exist either. Teddy Roosevelt explained
when asked if his orders are constitutional: "The constitution was created for the people, not
the people for the constitution".
One nice example: the famous "Affirmative Action". It is obviously inconsistent with the most
basic constitutional principle, that people are born equal. But it existed because the public
didn't mind.
It makes me really wonder if americans (and other nations) are feeling something like a 'weimar'
moment, when the germans in 1933 lost trust in their very young democracy after living for years
under economic hardship and political pariah.
There is so much that resembles the nazi-era, this xenophobia, that started with a slow decay
of civil rights, the erosion of check and balances without the need to change the constitution.
When we are heading for the similar kind of fascism like germany eighty years ago, at what point
people should be held responsible for making a stand ?
Schools, civic groups, and the media must to go back to fundamentals and explain what basic
American political values entail and why they are desirable.
Agreed. Special emphasis should be placed on accepting the results of elections, there appears
to have been a recent surge in undemocratic sentiment on that front.
I suspect that it's a change in what the word democracy means to people. Even the older generation
are starting to understand that the 'democracies' that we live under in the western world are
horribly distorted. Big corporations, even foreign ones, have far more access to the elected executive
than the actual voters. Governments dance to the tune of powerful media. Votes don't often count
for much at all.
With this background it's no wonder that the Brexit voters feel drunk with power. For once
they voted on something and believe that they will get exactly what they voted for. The final
irony is that for most of them they don't realise that they were turkeys voting for Christmas.
Brexit could have possibly bought them some benefits, but the Tories seem determined to deny them
even that. Once the realise they have been swindled, what then for democracy?
People have lost faith in democracy, politics, the judicial system and, yes, economics.
Voting
to remain in the EU, is a vote for the status quo...if you're lucky. They want more government,
not less. It is not a 20-50 year project. It is forever, and they will not stay still. It will
evolve, and not regress politically.
The UK government will have to change, and they have the chance. They may not succeed, but
I believe they will try, and the pressure from the people will be more direct.
The EU don't want to change. If it was an economic union and not a political one, then it would
be a great organisation.
Forget the garbage about wars and instability. That comes from economic success, with NATO
providing any security until that comes to fruition to the developing countries.
No surveys needed to arrive at these conclusions I am afraid, apathy and mistrust of govt has
been eroding for decades. US government is a cesspool of corruption and in no small way is aided
by the fact that its citizens have given tacit approval for the erosion of their own civil liberties
and rights while celebrating the war machine that has increasingly rolled on for more than 3 decades
The abyss looming for the US, and by extension the world, can be traced back to a populace that
abandoned democracy and freely gifted the cronies the mandate to accelerate the erosion.
Solution? Kill apathy and not only get back involved but remain vigilant to preserve checks
& balances
Forty years ago, democracy was more or less synonymous with prosperity. Given it's now wider spread
to many poorer states across the world, as well as the incredible increase in the standard of
living in non-democratic countries, principally China, this is no longer the case. I suspect we
have not made the case for democracy as an end in itself, nor as a route to distributing prosperity
more widely, or as a corollary of 'The Free Market'.
This (democracy relates to prosperity) is insightful. Will we all be able to operate democratically
when climate issues and exhaustion of resources vs. population force us to manage the decline?
A thought provoking article. Like many things it comes down to terminology .what, for example
is democracy? Are the US or UK systems really democracies when it is clear that laws are enacted
in the interests of a narrow group of citizens and corporations who have the power to lobby, especially
in the US where bribery has been legalized with respect to lobbying.
Beyond this, look at US
attempts to come up with some sort of climate change plan. All of these flounder on the twin rocks
of democracy with its lobbying (we'll never get voted in again) or economic cost to the tax payer
(we'll get voted out next time).
Democracy is always presented in our schools, TVs, books and newspapers as a universal good,
when in reality there are good democracies and bad democracies with the US and UK versions actually
being on the bad side what with an unelected second chamber of grandees in the UK and the US in
a state of perpetual wars of choice.
Countries are what they do. The US starts wars. The UK follows the US into wars. Most countries
whether democratic or not, don't start many wars (Germany hasn't started too many wars since 1939).
Many countries that don't start wars are actually controlled by non democratic governments or
military juntas .and personally I would prefer non democracies that don't start wars. It's not
a difficult concept to grasp.
The main problems with all forms of government is abuse of power and it goes on in democracies
as much as any other type of government. Look at Tony Blair astride the globe hoover-ing up millions
instead of being sitting next the Bush in a 6X8 feet cell. When Britain and America fell asleep
and accepted total state surveillance as the price they had to pay to stop a handful of terrorist
deaths each year, they set themselves up for this power to be abused in the future and badly abused.
What's the answer? Really it begins at home with lessons in honesty, modesty, selflessness and
the like. The reality and the kids are plonked down in front of the TV watching the avarice of
the Kardashians there is little hope.
After the horrors of WWII most people in the developed world understood both, the dangers and
merits of democracy. In fact there is a conventional wisdom that it is totalitarian regimes which
start wars, never democracies. By and large that may be true, but I don't think it is true in
every instance.
But the major motivation for people is to press their own advantage, even it
is to the detriment of somebody else. Even if it is quite evident that it is to the fatal detriment
of somebody else. I guess religion describes this as our original sin. If that goal of personal
advantage is better secured by a dictatorship then people (e.g. in 1930s Germany) will support
that. Democracy is not a value in itself for the majority, but just a means to an end. After all,
I suspect many would prefer to be rich in a totalitarian state, rather than poor in a democracy
(especially those people who have never lived under a totalitarian regime).
What people like Trump do is to legitimise this drive/desire/greed as something positive (greed
is good, greed works), when all of our upbringing has told us otherwise. Otherwise we could just
take to killing our siblings to acquire their larger bedrooms.
I suspect the horrors of WWII have to be repeated to re-learn that lesson.
oh well who cares. let the US rip itself apart from the inside, we all knew it was gonna happen
sooner or later.
there will be no need for a terrorist attack to destroy the US ,they manage that fine on their
own. a 50/50 split in the population over values and believes? Regardless of who's right and who's
wrong. Its so damaging that by the end of Trump Pax America will be history.
US cant even keep control in their own backyard atm, thousands are killed within their own
boarders every year by their own people, most average people will never get enough paid to sustain
a adequate living condition, they struggle heavily with race and race related problems. They struggle
heavily with females and female right.
But most importantly they are not united, americans hate americans now. Many americans hate their
fellow americans more than they hate outside enemies. And thats a fact. How can a society like
that survive?
The US will eat itself and Trump will probably earn a billion on it, he is after all a business
man. He does what suits him best. But did anyone actually expect something els?
Take it a step further and apparently the word of Jesus is that you pull the ladder up after
you and you look to the demagogue giving false praise to fantastical notions and mocking democracy.
There is much confusion between "Christian" America and America's Judeo-Christian Heritage. Books
have been written.
The heritage is what gave America, and Europe, Liberal Democracy and freedoms
understood as "self-evident." That is, embedded and safe from lawyers and politicians. You do
not need to be a "Christian" to enjoy the freedomos the heritage gives to all.
"self-evident" is a strong clue that the constitution was informed more by man-centred Enlightenment
than by residual Judeo-Christian Heritage.
The majority of the framers were Atheists or Deists; any reference to God was part of the necessary
legitimizing and marketing process. Since then it has been a process of Christianity (read: Protestantism)
being merged with the civic religion, to the point where they are indistinguishable. Both have
been mightily degraded in the process.
More recently, corporate America's propaganda campaign to merge Christianity with Capitalism,
fronted by Rev. J Fifield, was hugely successful, and has brought us to the present pass.
"While millennials may be politically liberal in their policy preferences... "
They are not
politically liberal. They might be vaguely called "socially liberal", supporting the causes prescribed
to them by a new "progressivism" in the name of ill-defined tolerance, diversity etc.
None of the above implies an understanding of liberal democracy.
There have been many strains of the "left" in the past that would be classified as "liberal"
under current American terminology but were totally undemocratic. That was why the term "democratic
left" was invented to separate left-wing people that really believe in democracy.
The modern "progressive identarian" is not a liberal.
If you are a Green Card holder and leave the US you can incure tax liability for up to 10 years.
Taxation without representation.
But........the most flagrant departure from Democracy is giving
the lawyers the final say on what is, or is not, the law. The legislature can pass whatever bills
they may like but if the lawyers say it is offensive or phobic it will be struck down. The "Supreme"
Court is the ultimate power in the USA and none are elected by the people and none can be removed
by the people. The only way they go is in a box.
Sad to say, Tony Blair (surprise surprise!) created the same undemocratic monster in our country
and even labelled it the same way: "Supreme." Unelected, unaccountable and as politically motivated
as its US counterpart.
No the SC in the US can decide a law is contrary to the constitution.
Can you give a single example where the UK SC has 'struck down' any legislation? They have declared
govt decisions contrary to existing law including common law. You do seem to have a habit of coming
on here making stuff up.
In the context of first past the post, democracy is a total con. If you examine those democracies
with FPTP you wintness the most right wing governments on the planet that use this system. PR
as is used across Europe prevents these extremes and all votes count. Do you think the Tories
OR Labour will rush to change to this? No chance. Lastly, here and in the US, you have a choice
of two broadly similar parties who serve the rich and powerful who have engineered democracy largely
by contolling the press, to suit their own ends. By definition therefore, democracy here and in
the US is a caricature of what was originally intended for the people and not fit for purpose.
I support the introduction of PR, but it is a mistake to assume that any kind of voting system
or institution will stop the collapse of democracy/ democratic institutions Economic and social
strife will tend to overcome all safeguards when the public starts to feel desperate. A good example
and warning from history is the rise of the Nazi party in pre WW2 Germany. Trump and the republicans
have yet to destroy democracy and I see no suggestion that T will refuse to stand fro reelection.
I agree that the reason democracy has lost its lustre is because both her and in the US we are
offered no real choice. In terms of economic policy, the "There is No Alternative" party always
wins. Unsurprisingly, people start to believe that there IS no alternative, and therefore the
choice on offer is not genuine. They then either lose interest in voting altogether, or look for
more extreme offerings which seem to be truly different.
Bringing up the 'law and order' issues combined with blaming it on immigrants is typical of far
right regimes that want to undermine democratic values and move towards dictatorship.
By casting aspersions on the judiciary, Trump is echoing past dictators. First, he questions
their independence and then, when another terrorist incident occurs (whether white or non-white)
he can say 'I told you so, this atrocity is all the judge's fault'. America has truly entered
a new dark age. Let's pray that good men and women will continue to uphold and defend the
Constitution and the rule of law...
Share
Democracy has been in decline in the west for some time now, and it isn't just the right or the
left which has abandoned it. Nearly every western country has a bill of rights (either a strong
version eg the US which can strike down legislation or a weaker one eg the U.K. where the courts
award damages for breaches and make declarations of incompatibility). The EU has pros and cons
but no one could pretend it is democratic. The UK still has the House of Lords. The Canadian academic
James Allen has written a good book on it - how elites have now decided they know best.
We need
to be wary of this endless erosion of majority rule. Tin pot dictators the world over have always
had an excuse for ignoring the majority. Latin American military Juntas always explained that
they had to have power to ensure security. Human rights lawyers say they are needdd to uphold
the ever evolving concept of human rights. The Church used to insist it should have power to enforce
God's rule. The Fijian army in 1987 made an openly racist coup (attracting minimal opprobrium
and next to no action from the international community). Even those who think there are sound
reasons to ignore the majority have to admit they're not in great historical company
The EU has pros and cons but no one could pretend it is democratic.
The EU is not a state; it is 28 member states acting collaboratively in a number of specified
policy areas. As such, the appropriate comparison is not between the EU and a state but between
the EU and other collective bodies through which states cooperate with one-another such as the
UN or NATO. In terms of giving representation to ordinary citizens of its member states, I would
say the EU compares extremely favourably.
Moreover, the only two bodies in the EU that are able to enact legislation (and can only do
so through the agreement of both bodies) are the EU Parliament, which is directly elected by the
citizens of the member states and the Council, which consists of members of the Governments of
the member states, which, in turn, have been put in place by the citizens of the member states
through whichever electoral system is employed in each member state. We don't need to 'pretend'
that the EU is democratic; it's system of governance IS democratic in the same way that the governance
structures of western democracies are democratic.
Fewer people believe in the importance of democracy because we're several generations on from
almost having lost it. In the same vein we're more likely to have a major war than we were 40/50
years ago because none of the major world leaders have experience of one. It's cyclic. We become
complacent and smug until it happens again.
Fewer people believe in the importance of democracy because we're several generations on from
almost having lost it. In the same vein we're more likely to have a major war than we were 40/50
years ago because none of the major world leaders have experience of one. It's cyclic. We become
complacent and smug until it happens again.
"It was a stirring victory for the rule of law and reaffirmation of the independence of the
judiciary."
It most certainly was NOT anything of the kind. It was an act of judicial arrogance and a deliberate
attempt to undermine the long upheld power of the President to take actions that HE considers
required for the safety of the nation. What the ruling basically did was substitute judicial preferences
for Presidential preferences no matter that the Constitution was clearly not supportive of this
usurpation of power. you can review LOTS of legal opinions that state precisely this. An horrendously
POLITICAL decision that will come back to haunt the courts.
A defense of 'democracy' that begins with a defense of an arbitrary and demonstrably BAD court
ruling is pretty much fatally flawed from the jump.
Democracy works for as long as the fracture points in society are papered over with a commonality
of basic interests. When that is not the case, democracy cannot endure. The US (and others will
follow) is fracturing into pieces that simply don't like each other for VERY fundamental reasons,
including the definition of a Nation State and what it means.
Democracy works when things go well. It cannot work when it all falls apart. Oh and it also of
course fails when the majority have a vested interest in getting stuff 'free', and can vote to
have their demands enacted no matter the consequences.
LOTS of places are not democracies. It really isn't the future. Too many fault lines coming up.
Only 53% of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump to make the
right decisions for the United States."
One of the reasons why I am very sceptical of opinion polls or surveys is that they often ask
the wrong questions. It is not for judges to make decisions about what is best for the country
which this question clearly implies. Their job is to judge what complies with the law.
Judges do not make political decisions about what is right for the United States any more than
they do about what is right for the UK. It is this lack of understanding which leads to them being
called enemies of the people.
It all boils down to education. Democracy can't work when you have so many people prepared to
believe and base their vote on 'fake news' (a nicer way to say lie).
Governments in a democracy
need to make having a well educated public a priority. Provide a high standard education for all
the population up to secondary school level for free (or at a rate affordable to everyone) and
you greatly diminish the chances of another Trump/Brexit.
And hopefully diminish the chances of more "moderate" alternatives bringing the Population to
its knees? Was Thatcher more "moderate" than Trump or did the Me Generation that she created usher
in May and Trump.
One person's victory is another's defeat. Politicians and voters are divided on judicial appointments
to the Supreme Court, and the 4-4 split in the current court illustrates that the rule of law
is simply another reflection of politics.
I think the Ninth Court made a big mistake. Why? Because
playing politics with the law can have serious unintended consequences. American Presidents have
been resorting to shock and awe against Muslims because they can't use tough domestic security
measures to protect Americans at home for fear of US judges taking an uncompromising view of constitutional
rights. Trump's predecessors have not only resorted to foreign military action, but they have
taken risks with extra-legal measures like Rendition, Secret Prisons, Torture and Drone attacks.
The Ninth Court may uphold the constitutional rights of people coming from war zones to attend
universities in Washington State, but the real world consequence of their hostility to domestic
security measures will be to corner existing and future presidents in to bombing suspected terrorists
abroad, making the world infinitely less safe with regime-changing wars.
Congress gave the President the power to exclude people from the US on national security grounds.
The University of Maryland maintains the Global Terrorism Database which lists more than 150,000
attacks since it began.
96% of current terrorism killing more than 7000 people each year is
claimed by jihadis. President Trump first mentioned his proposed temporary ban after the murders
in San Bernardino.
I don't think its unreasonable to restrict people coming from these war zones when they've
been murdering people elsewhere, including Paris, Brussels, Berlin etc. It seems that US judges
can't be persuaded that the right to life is more important than the temporary inconvenience of
not being able to attend universities in Washington State unless and until such people murder
Americans on American soil. I wouldn't call that 'constitutional'. It's offensive stupidity and
irresponsible.
If Americans were so concerned about the right to life they would do something about their almost
non-existent gun laws. Terrorists don't have to kill Americans since Americans are doing such
a good job of it on their own.
Americans are waking up to the fact that the elite and establishment don't care about the them.
The media lies, the courts are trying to let in terrorists. TRump is the only one who is fighting
for the people. Trump is fighting for truth, Trump is fighting for our safety, even though the
establishment is desperate to make us less safe (my guesss do the 1% can profit somehow). Fake
news by the media is only continue to push this
Trump is fighting for Americans, we need to unite behind him. He will never let us down, and
never lie to us.
It's funny how Americans use Christianity as a weapon and are always quoting an eye for an eye
etc instead of love your neighbour. If you are a Christian then surely you should realise that
the old testament which is The Torah is all about revenge and anger whereas the New Testament
is all about forgiveness and love and if the two come from the same God then that God has a spilt
personality!
Also looking at history if you remember that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity ask
yourself what were Christians doing 600 years ago and you will see a lot of it was the same as
what Jihardis are doing today - torture, beheadings and killing of those seen as apostates in
the name of religion.
And remember American was founded by those seeking religious freedom despite the fact they
oppressed the religions of the Native Americans and then went on to break more than 400 treaties
with the Native Americans over the years.
Even the declaration of independence was signed mainly by slave owners ( which is surely anti-christian)
and apartheid reigned in the US until Martin Luther King.
Land of the free and home of the brave is some king of joke played on the people but only noted
by historians.
To an important degree extensive, well-understood and articulately defended democracy only
"matters" if you ascribe a large role to the [nation/federal] state - if you think it should
spend very large amounts of money, address all manner of social problems, and regulate everything
people do to reduce risk and enforce equality/diversity. If you believe in a minimal state
(as most of the US founders did) then a much clearer and less pressing kind of democracy
for national affairs is fully adequate. It is at the local level - in the states and counties,
the towns and cities - that regular and engaged democracy is essential. And this report
does not look at that at all. It is only bothered about who gets to drive forward the all-powerful
state. If Pres Trump - and it is a very big if - wants to reduce the role of the state,
then the significance of his actions through that state become clearer and more capable
of control.
surely the problem is that so much of what happens in a modern democracy cannot be carried out
at a local level. You cannot have a local level internet. You cannot decide where your highways
and trains are going to go purely at the local level. You cannot, in most cases, feed and clothe
and support your population at the local level and any form of trade requires agreements that
take place at a much higher level.
It's a very interesting phenomenon. The 'attraction' of Trump is that he's a loose cannon and
doesn't seem to have that much control over a lot of what he says. The remarks about Putin and
America's own predilection for killing people - which caused him to be called anti-American for
actually speaking the truth - is a case in point. He is the precise opposite of your usual buttoned
up on-message politician and that, quite frankly, is refreshing. He is precisely where our democracy
itself has led to. Because of its reliance on professional politicians who say one thing and mean
another, his tendency to blabber and say just what's on his mind, must be perceived as a virtue.
Where this will lead, I have no idea, but he is definitely opening up new unexplored territory
and what we might find in it is anyone's guess. As the old Chinese curse goes, "May you live in
interesting times."
The Senate confirmed the appointment of retired general James Mattis as secretary of defense on
Friday, making him the first member of Donald Trump's cabinet cleared to take office.
The Senate vote was passed by 98-1 after Trump signed a waiver making Mattis exempt from a law
that blocks senior officers from taking the defense secretary job within seven years of retirement.
Mattis has been out of uniform for three years.
The single vote against his confirmation was from Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat who
argued the bar should remain in place on the grounds that civilian control of the military was a
fundamental principle of US democracy.
Hundreds of thousands of his supporters poured into Washington from all over the US, partly to
savor this moment of history and partly to
celebrate that the country was theirs again
.
Many of the Trumpistas were making their first visit to the nation's capital. "With the help
of our new president, to remind the world why America was great to begin with," said Jimmy Kirby,
46, an electrician from Nashville, Tennessee, who had driven 11 hours to have his first taste of
the city.
Another newcomer, Jeff Krotz, 49, from Buffalo, New York, used edgier language. A military
veteran, he said: "Nobody respects us. There's no God in the country any more, and the way I see
it if you don't like the way we do things here you can go somewhere else."
Shirts proclaiming "Proud member of the basket of deplorables" were peppered through the
crowd, as were those demanding "Hillary for prison 2016". Others had an even more malevolent
ring, with one man sporting a T-shirt that said: "The witch is dead".
"This is the mood of the world," said Richard Pease, 53, a printing sales executive from New
Hampshire. "You just watch: first Brexit, then Trump, next Marine Le Pen for France. People want
their lives back."
Asked to elaborate, Pease said: "I'm a white male who owns firearms. At least for the next
four years I get to keep my guns and my balls."
From comments: "Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity
about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction." "The biggest cabal of sociopathic criminals the world has ever
known."
Notable quotes:
"... This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s, warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said. ..."
"... Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone. Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what he likes to call the spirit of Davos. ..."
"... It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation. They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings. ..."
"... 'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected.' ..."
"... Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks. ..."
"... Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable! ..."
"... Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction. ..."
"... Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017; it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid. ..."
"... What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while paying lip-service to the poor? ..."
"... One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not a new question. ..."
"... Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we all rely on but especially citizens. ..."
"... Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works. ..."
"... Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership, plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international ones. ..."
"... My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception. ..."
"... This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts. After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world and on what steps to take to mitigate it."! ..."
"... I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the complete destruction of diverse cultures. ..."
Trump's influence can also be felt in other ways. The manner in which he won the US election,
tapping in to deep-seated anger about the unfair distribution of the spoils of economic growth,
has been noted. There is talk in Davos of the need to ensure that globalisation works for everyone.
This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s,
warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash
against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive
impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said.
Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone.
Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to
rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered
until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what
he likes to call the spirit of Davos.
It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump
presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation.
They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the
new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings.
In Trump's absence, it has been left to two senior members of the outgoing Obama administration
– his vice-president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state John Kerry – to fly the US flag.
Just
as significantly, Xi Jinping is the first Chinese premier to attend Davos and has made it clear
that, unlike Trump, he has no plans to resile from international obligations. The sense of a changing
of the guard is palpable.
missuswatanabe
It's the way globalisation has been managed for the benefit of the richest in the developed
world that has been bad for the masses rather than globalisation itself.
I thought this was an interesting, if US-centric, perspective on things:
'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing
workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could
have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition,
but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to
keep them largely protected.'
Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks.
Paul Paterson -> ConBrio
Decent, hardworking Americans facing social and economic insecurity, whether on the right
or left, ought to be the focus. We need to deal with the concerns of the average citizen, however
it is they vote. Fringe groups don't serve our attention given tbe very real problems the country
faces.
Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables
and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but
little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average
Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable!
What we should concern ourselves with is the very real social and economic insecurity felt
by many in red states and blue states alike. Those decent and hardworking Americans, regardless
of party, are joined in much. Deplorables aren't the average Republican voter and didn't win
Trump an election - they are too few to win much of anything.
What you keep referring to as Deplorables are decent Americans seeking change and socioeconomic
justice. You are mixing up citizens who happen to vote for the GOP withbwhite nationalist scum.
How dare you tar all conservatives with the hate monger brush!
Spunky325 -> Paul Paterson
Actually, before taking office, Trump strong-armed Ford and GM into putting more money in
their American plants, instead of moving more production to Mexico. He's also questioned cost-overruns
on Air Force One and several military projects which is causing companies to back off. I can't
think of another American president who has felt it was important to keep jobs in America or
who has questioned military spending. Good for him!
Paul Paterson -> Spunky325
You've made it quite clear "you can't think" as you've bought into the ruse. The question
is why are you so boastful about it? Trump's policies are even seen by economists on the right
as creating staggering levels of debt, creating more economic inequality and unlikely to increase
jobs.
Among many flaws, they point out tax proposals that hurt the poor and middle class to such
a degree it almost seems targeted. This is the same economic plot that has failed working Americans
repeatedly. You folks are getting caught up in a time share pitch and embracing policy that
has little chance to help the average American - however it is they vote. It isn't supposed
to but y'all are asleep at the wheel.
DrBlamm0
Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about
the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction.
johhnybgood
Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses
of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017;
it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid.
bilyou
What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their
hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while
paying lip-service to the poor?
Maybe Trump just decided to trough it at his tower and avoid hanging out with a grotesque
bunch of insufferable see you next Tuesdays.
Ricardo_K
One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the
vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not
a new question.
Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we
all rely on but especially citizens.
James Patterson
Xi's statements on a trade war are completely self serving. But his assertions that he is
against protectionism and unfair trading practices is laughably hypocritical. China refuses
to let any Silicon Valley Internet company one inch past the Great Firewall. Under his direction
the CCP has imposed draconian regulations, which change by the week, on American Companies
operating in China making fair competition with local Chinese companies impossible.
The business climate in China is reprehensible. The CCP has resorted to extortion, requiring
that U.S. tech companies share their most sensitive trade secrets and IP with Chinese state
enterprises or get barred from conducting business there. Sadly, U.S. companies entered China
with high expectations and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in factories, labs and
equipment. This threat has caused many CEO's to sacrifice their company's long term viability
by transferring their most closely guarded technological advances to China or face the loss
their entire investment in China. Even so, multinationals are beginning the Chinese exodus
led by those with less financial exposure soon to be followed by companies like Apple despite
significant economic ties.
True, most people believe a 'trade war' with China means America is the defacto loser because
of dishonest reporting. The truth is that America's economic exposure to China is extremely
limited. U.S. exports to China represent only 7% of America's total exports worldwide; which
in turn accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GDP (Wells Fargo Economics Group 2015). Most
of America's exports to China are raw materials, which can be redirected to other markets with
some effort. So even if China blocked all U.S. exports tomorrow, America's economy could absorb
the blow with minimal damage. This presents the U.S. government with a wide range of options
to deal with China's many trade infractions and unfair practices as aggressively or punitively
as it wishes.
europeangrayling
Poor Davos attendees. You feel for them at their fancy alpine Bilderberg. It's like the
meeting of the mafia organizations, if the mafia became legal and respected now and ran the
world economy. And I don't think those economic royalists at Davos miss Trump, Trump was a
small fish compared to the Davos people. They make Trump look like a dishwasher.
They are just pissed Trump came out against the TPP and those globalist 'free trade' deals,
and doesn't want more regime change maybe. They like everything else about Trump's policies,
the big tax cuts, environmental and banking deregulations galore, it's like Reagan 2.0, without
the 'free trade'. But they really want that 'free trade' though, those guys are used to getting
everything. Imagine if Bernie won, they would really hate that guy, he is also against the
TPPs and trade, and for less war, and against everything else they are used to. And that's
good, if those honorable brilliant Davos gentleman don't like you, that's not a bad thing.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs
With secular stagnation we should all be asking why is economics so bad?
Keynesian redistributive capitalism went out with Margaret Thatcher and inequality has been
rising ever since (there is a clue there for the economists amongst us).
How did these new ideas rise to prominence?
"There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics
It's awarded by Sweden's central bank, foisted among the five real prizewinners, often to economists
for the 1% -- and the surviving Nobel family is strongly against it."
"The award for economics came almost 70 years later-bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a
bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden's 300th anniversary." Yes, you read
that right: "a marketing ploy."
Today's economics rose to prominence by awarding its economists Nobel Prizes that weren't Nobel
Prizes.
No wonder it's so bad.
Global elites can use all sorts of trickery to put their ideas in place, but economics is economics
and if doesn't reflect how the economy operates it won't work.
Secular stagnation – what more evidence do we need?
HauptmannGurski -> bcarey
Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had
he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works.
Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership,
plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus
is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international
ones.
Meanwhile, alibaba's Jack Ma said in Davos that the US had spent many trillions on wars in
the last 30 years and neglected their own infrastructure. Money is for people, or some such
like, he said. Just mentioning it here, because the MSM tend to dislike running this kind of
remark.
Rajanvn -> HauptmannGurski
My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave
and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception.
Did it, in any way, with all the stars in the financial galaxy gathered in one place, warn
against the 2008 global financial meltdown? The real reason why so many moneybags congregate
at a place which would be shunned by all who have no affinity for snow sports may be, according
to my own reckoning, may not be that innocent and may even be quite sinister.
This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other
secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete
with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts.
After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss
you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the
purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited
to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world
and on what steps to take to mitigate it."!
Roland33
I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital
flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape
Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we
are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning
and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the
complete destruction of diverse cultures.
If everyone drives Toyota and everyone drinks Starbucks
we lose the diversity of culture that people claim they find so valuable. And replaces it with
a mono-culture of Levi jeans and McDonalds. Wealth inequality is really something that can
be reduced if you look various countries score higher in this regard than others while still
being highly successful market economies but I think money is secondary to the displacement
and alienation that come with the first two aspects of globalisation. I find it strange that
it is now the right that advocates reversing these neoliberal trends and the left that seems
to champion it. I was conscious during the 90's and anti-globalisation was clearly a left wing
issue. For whatever reason the left just leaves room for the right to harvest the grapes of
wrath they warned about many years ago. Don't blame the "populist" right ask why the left left
them the space.
The leaks also revealed that US diplomats had been ordered
to take part in an intelligence-collection
operation at the United Nations
targeted at the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the permanent security council
representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.
Washington wanted diplomats as well as the intelligence agencies to pick up
details such as credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers
and even frequent-flyer account numbers of UN figures as well as "biographic and
biometric information on UN security council permanent representatives".
The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US
missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates,
including those in London, Paris and Moscow.
The cable raised questions about the dividing line between diplomats and spies
in Washington's eyes, and without doubt made UN and other foreign officials think
very carefully about subsequent meetings with US diplomats.
US officials have asserted that the release of the material endangered the
lives of US diplomats' foreign sources. The state department legal adviser at the
time, Harold Koh
argued
the document dump "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent
individuals" as well as "ongoing military operations".
He accused
WikiLeaks
of endangerment "without regard to the security and the sanctity of
the lives your actions endanger".
There are no proven cases of deaths directly attributable to the release of the
cables. But there was no doubt about the breadth and depth of the embarrassment.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
