Thoughts on the US 2020 election

 

Clearly Trump and his administration must be removed from office for their incompetence on covid19, nepotism, the appointments of an army of fanatics and libertines to executive  and judicial offices, abuses of power, corruption, the massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the obscenely rich under the Cares Act, the emboldening Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, the persecution of Muslims, the failure to address murder and brutality being committed by the police, belligerent threats of annihilation against other nations, the failure to address student debt, pulling out of the Iran nuclear treaty, weakening of regulation on destruction of the environment, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate, to name a few reasons.

That being said, unlike the last umpteen administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Trump did not start any new wars and was in fact against more war hence his fall-out with John Bolton. We can fully expect a resumption of US imperialism under the Democrats which will of course be enthusiastically supported by Republicans, in congress at least. There will be no universal healthcare system despite the country being ravaged by covid19. There will be more deregulation of corporate activities from finance to pollution, leading to another and possibly terminal financial crisis and another 8 years of failure to address the burgeoning climate crisis which threatens to end civilisation as we know it. We can also expect the continual ratcheting up of authoritarianism as the US population rebels more and more against their appalling economic malaise at the hands of the corporate elite

Americans seem to like to think in terms of hope, but the reality is that hope is a luxury they can no longer afford. If they do not overthrow the corporate state and radically address the inequalities in healthcare, education, living conditions, working conditions, wealth, political influence, then they are doomed to a societal death spiral accelerated by evermore frequent appointments of fanatics and psychopaths to the Whitehouse, leaders who will make us long for Trump again, the way we longed for Bush again under Trump. These ruthless demagogues will have at their disposal not only the police and military forces of state but an ever-growing movement of angry racist hyper-masculine militias eager to express their discontent with LGTBQs, ethnic minorities, liberals and a laundry list of groups of people they hate, through barrels of their Glocks and AR-15s. Let's not forget of course the increasingly violent counter-movement from the left namely Antifa, who will do nothing to protect American society, but only to contribute to the misery, further enrage the already disenfranchised and grease the slide into anomie and civil collapse.

We in the UK are not merely distant observers, we already suffer many of the symptoms of the corporate-capitalist domination we see writ large in the US, and we too, much like Canada, will follow the US down the same drain hole. Furthermore, the collapse of the US could see nuclear weapons come under the control of some of the most frightening and deluded fanatics, both religious and non-religious, in the world.

There is little to celebrate from this election but the temporary removal of one of America's worst. The descent into destruction nonetheless proceeds unobstructed.

Representative Democracy: An oxymoron?

I've often given thought to the idea of the representation of interests but have never 'put pen to paper', so I thought I might share with you where I have gotten to and see what you think about the matter.

Who is the best arbiter of your best interests? As a babies we lack any capacity to reason and therefore it is down to our parents to do their best to ensure our survival and our futures. Our genes predetermine this parental behaviour, which is what is meant by maternal or paternal instincts. As our capacity to reason develops we begin our struggle for independence. Often an unhappy time for both child and parents as their instinct to best serve our interests starts to conflict with our own developing sense of self interest. At some point we take control of our much our own interests, which is typically upon leaving the nest. Outside of this normative pattern the capacity of others to best serve our interests diminishes with diminishing kinship. That is to say; the less connected we are as family or friends the more we are likely to be serving our own interests rather than each others'.

How then is a representative democracy possible? Is it merely an oxymoron? Can a politician really have your interests at heart? Personally I don't think so. They are by nature representing their own interests, even if they earnestly believe they are trying to serve ours. Even if we manage to communicate to them our needs and desires we run into numerous problems.

• The representative is going to have to balance our needs and desires against the needs of desires of others they are representing.
• They have their own political ideologies, needs and desires that may and in my opinion almost without exception does conflicts with our interests.
• Party affiliations often demand that representatives follow the party line even if the representative is not in favour of the party line.
• The fact that one person is supposedly representing the interests of many makes them a target of powerful third party interests who are seeking to ensure that your interests are not represented. This can take the form of bribery, propaganda and even threats.

It is also important to note that the rich and powerful conspire to ensure that democracy is so configured. An examination of the notes of James Madison, perhaps the leading framer of the US constitution, provides us with an important insight into the thinking of the elite. The US founding fathers certain had England as a working model around which to construct their own system, and notes from their secret meetings show just that:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." [1]

Particular attention should be paid to the notion of protecting the interests of the minority of the opulent against the majority. Here James Madison is explicitly stating that the interests of the rich and powerful must trump those of the masses, fearful that democracy would lead to equality. Despite these horrific statements we should bare in mind that the founders were actually attempting to construct a comparatively more fair system for all than that of England at the time. They were however in fact elite, wealthy land owners and slave owners, and of course serving their own interests. This is the US 'representative democracy' in construction, but what they were in fact constructing was a tyranny over the masses with democracy for the rich. That system persists to this day, with our own British system now mimicking it almost entirely.

These points certainly demonstrate how wealthy people impose a class system upon us in which the further down the social order we are, the less participation in democracy we are afforded, for the explicit purpose of serving their interests, even if they believe they are serving ours.

For me, I don't think that there is any such thing as a representative democracy, because representatives do not and cannot represent us. I do think the term is at best an oxymoron if not an outright term of propaganda.

What do you think?

References
[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

Syria and the myths of power

Today I encountered two points of view that caught my attention. The first was an article posted in The Guardian by Niall Ferguson criticising left wing views on US intervention in Syria, which immediately had me thinking about propaganda and the establishment's self justifying mythology. By accident I stumbled upon an interesting talk called 'The Myth of Capitalism" by the historian Michael Parenti who from the outset began laying out what I was already thinking about regarding the Ferguson article, which was both a delight, for having my own view supported, and also a bit of a bummer since he was saying more or less what I wanted to say now, leaving me feeling like anything I write here now will be superfluous at best. Nonetheless I am compelled to write and so here I am.

Thankfully Parenti's talk is about capitalism whereas I wanted to talk about the situation in Syria, the 'humanitarian intervention' being pushed for by the West and the reality of Western power. Ferguson's article, I believe, is more or less a reflection of his beliefs on the matter in hand rather than some deceitful propaganda he dreamed up with hope of fooling readership. Ferguson argues for three points in his article, which I feel must be addressed:

"I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence."

That US military might is the "best available means of preventing crimes against humanity" is to me predicated on basis of illusion and delusion. First off we would have to ignore all of the crimes against humanity carried out by the US both directly and indirectly. Western establishment media of course does this almost uniformly, notwithstanding the occasional article in The Guardian buried deep amongst the non-headline articles and thus never actually penetrating the public mind. Furthermore the establishment has always gone to extreme lengths to silence sources, of significance, that expose their criminality. So right now Bradley Manning is languishing in prison for having leaked evidence of US war crimes and the central journalist of this revelation, Julian Assange is being persecuted under the dubious pretext of being a fugitive of justice for rape, the details of which leave few in doubt as to the real agenda in play. Perhaps we should just remind ourselves of what the US did in Iraq that was leaked:

This is just one instance, just in Iraq, and we are 'lucky' to have such explicit video evidence, thanks to the bravery of Bradley Manning. It is difficult to convey how this represents a mere drop in the ocean of crimes of US imperialism, most of which the Western public is kept ignorant of by the Western establishment media, but for the curious amongst you, you may wish to look into US operations in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Cambodia, Cuba and Haiti to name a few. This ignores all of the proxy wars, terrorism and oppression carried out on behalf of the US or with its consent in places like Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, East Timor, Palestine ad nauseam. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and others write and talk extensively about many of these 'ventures', which you can find on YouTube or in print.

The second argument made by Ferguson is that the US is a reluctant actor in the world with respect to its use of military force. This is an extraordinary claim that really has me wondering about Ferguson's honesty on the matter. In what sense might we call the US reluctant to use military force? It might prefer to delegate acts of mass violence to its client states for appearance purposes, but that is really about it. The US doesn't spend as much of the rest of the world combined on it's means of violence for no reason. It's 900 military bases stationed around the world might also be telling us something too. However its list of military engagements, against countries that were certainly not attacking the US, since WWII, must surely be the concrete post in the coffin of the argument for reluctance.

For me, the most interesting argument Ferguson makes in favour of US military engagement is that the world would be more violent without it. This is the template myth upon which all establishment power is instituted and maintained. The point was made beautifully in the film 'V for Vendetta' when Chancellor Sutler bellows to his staff; "I want everyone to remember why they need us". It is certainly common place for the police to believe that without the police the world would descend into perpetual violence, thus justifying their own violence, which is almost without exception discussed under the aegis of 'justice' within the establishment media, thus disguising police violence that is mentioned and completely ignoring implicitly the violence carried out by the police that isn't mentioned. The reality is that the majority of and the most extreme violence in the world is carried out by authorities, not ordinary people. They rely upon the myth that without their violence there would be greater violence. So we have to fear a world that doesn't exist in order to accept the world of violence that does exist. In fact the entire world order is constructed on the basis of violence or at least the threat of their violence. That is what is meant by the term 'force' as in 'police force', 'air force' and so forth. It is their capacity to use violence to achieve what is favourable to them. Really we should be asking ourselves, 'are my neighbours really going to march around here and start threatening me with violence if there is no police force?'. Very few people are going to answer an honest 'yes' to this question. In reality you are more likely to get the most rapid and effective help from your neighbours in the case of being attacked than you are from the police, if only your neighbours are called.upon. The real justification for authoritarian power was articulated eloquently by US founding father James Madison. In discussion of the founding of the United States he wrote:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[1]

 "Protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". That's right, it is all about protecting the rich, and their wealth, from the masses from whom they exploited it, often using violence.

With respect to Syria, the idea that the US has any humanitarian concerns is absurd. Groups that are attacking the Syrian regime are comprised of militant groups largely supported by if not controlled out right by US client regimes, most notably Saudi Arabia. The US as always is seeking hegemonic control in the region, not least for the region's oil resources, and Syria is a pillar of support to Iran, perhaps the most prized of oil producers not under US control.

Is Niall Ferguson a ruthless liar for Western power or merely indoctrinated with the myths of Western power? I think I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

It's time to plan for an end to war, WWIII is almost here

The US is threatenning Iran if you hadn't noticed. Here is a sample public discussion, but you can find many on the web:

China and Russia do not appear to be prepared to let the US/UK/Israel unholy triumverate attack Iran without consequence as is implied in the following sample program discussion, though as before it is far from the only example, you can also hear Chinese and Russian military generals implying the same kinds of things:

 
It's almost surreal, as Noam Chomsky would say. We are now in the overtures of WWIII and everyone seems to be going about their business; business as usual.


Regardless of what you think of David Icke, this short collection of clips that include Icke wil give you a flavour of what is going on now:

The time for oppression to end is now. The biggest threat to everyone on the planet is their own government as governments are nothing more than a collection of the most crooked and murderous narcissistic fascists in every country.

The people of the world need to plan to march on their capital cities on the same date and spread the message. 12/12/12? the Mayan calendar date? Guy Fawkes eve, 5th November? The idea being that the news of the planned march will be a significant warning in itself, assuming enough people talk about it. If the threat of war draws nearer, no doubt the collective will revise its plans

If you want to copy and paste this post, be my guest.