It is hard to convey to a population lost in the dream world of corporate media what kind of trouble they are in in this moment. The corporate Coup d'état is bringing the ‘free’ world the same oppression it inflicts up on the 3rd World, whilst taking us closer to world war every day and rapidly accelerating the systematic destruction of the planet itself. Ordinary folk must sit up, pay attention and act. Populations are stirring but we must shove the coffee pot under their noses right now!
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 executiveand 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.
Did Blair express here a key motivation for the Iraq invasion? From the declassified record on the 2003 Iraq invasion published as part of the Chilcot Inquiry.
"we must galvanise
British businesses to take up opportunities in Iraq" [1].
This was just a few of months into the invasion, about 6 months after MOD policy director Simon Webb floated the idea that:
"Various ideas for replacements [for Saddam Hussein] have been aired over the years and none so far look convincing. But another Ba'athist or military dictator from the Sunni/Tikriti minority might be found with whom we could do business" - Simon Webb, UK MOD Policy Director 2001-2004 [2]
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
Sam Harris has often referred us to a specific hypothetical moral dilema which forms what appears to be a cornerstone in his philosophy concerning the practice of religion, and in all likelihood one of the key foundations in what appears to be his tacit, if not explicit, endorsement of certain aggressive aspects of US foreign policy. The dilema proposes a scenario in which a runaway train cart is on course to wipe out a group of workers plying their trade on the track. According to the rules of the dilema only one of 2 possible courses of action may be taken. One is to do nothing whilst the other is to kill an otherwise uninvolved individual, the result of which will be that the cart does not go on to kill the group of rail workers. Sam comes down in favour of killing the innocent bystander on the basis of the lower resultant body count. This Sam does without equivocation, as though it were an obvious a conclusion to reach, just as choosing not to open fire on a crowd of shoppers simply because you have a gun. Sam does not explore the ethics of the other option in our raiload dilema, and that is to take no action, though he gently urges us to except his conclusion on the basis that truths may in fact be less than obvious to us, citing the Double Jeapardy 3 door dilema as another such case. In fairness to Sam he does explore the alternative in a different scenario, in which we consider the possibility of sacrificing a hospital patient suffering say only a minor injury in order to save the lives of several other patients who are in need of critical organs which our patient happens to have. In this scenario Sam comes down on the side of not sacrificing the individual for the sake of the body count. Is Sam suffering from a case of what Orwell called double think? I.e the ability of the human mind to simultaneously accept two mutually incompatible statements or beliefs. In fairness to Sam I should say that I don't know what Sam's reasoning is though he does seem to expect us to find it obvious, and it maybe the case that Sam pictures different conditions to that which he appears to me to present. That said, I would like to go back to the railway scenario and examine the option of taking no action.
The principle view point in the philosophy of ethics, to me at least, is of the actors or catalysts in a given scenario. That is to say that what the rest world is doing is irrelevant, what matters is the action or inaction of the actor. This, on the face of it, might appear to lend favour to Sam's argument in the case of the runaway train cart. However if we start to adjust some of the criteria of the scenario we may unveil a broader picture that is not obvious from simply taking the train cart scenario in isolation. For example let's suppose that the innocent bystander is Sam's own child, assuming Sam has a child for the sake of the argument. Sam doesn't know any of the track workers in peril, but according to Sam's moral reasoning we should assume that he would be at least in favour of killing his child to save the track workers, whomever they may be. I think it would be hard for anyone to believe that Sam would actually support the notion of killing his child and thus hold any respect for statements by Sam to the effect that he would kill his child if presented with the scenario for real. Could you support the notion of killing your own child in this scenario? Your answer to that question is what we would call a moral value. So what has changed? We have substituted his child for an anonymous individual, but the moral dilemma itself has not changed. Now, I don't want to be seen to be putting words into Sam's mouth so I shall just remind you that Sam, as far as I know has not made his position in our altered scenario known, and for all I know he may not have even thought about it. We do however appear to have a conflict of morality here to resolve, as I suspect most people fall strongly in favour of not killing their children, which I believe to be a good thing, and that is also a moral value. So, what is at the heart of the conflict? Well, it would seem to me to be down to the question of action or inaction, physically at least.
On the matter of action versus inaction I believe it to be valuable to explore the ethics of inaction as the complexity of real life may reveal more about the reality of outcomes versus hypothetical scenarios in which other considerations are excluded for the purpose of building an ethical argument. First off, in our railway crisis, we are urged to ignore external actors, be they natural or intelligent. So we are encouraged not to consider that we do not know that everything will turn out as we are led to believe. For example, let's suppose our group of rail workers are in fact Nazi sympathisers trying to dislodge a rail so as to kill the Jewish occupants of a later train. This fact we add to the scenario, but we do not allow the principle actor and would be saviour to know this information. If we sacrifice our innocent bystander, the Nazi plot remains uncovered by virtue of them having been saved from a grisly meeting with a fast moving and very heavy machine. The Nazi conspirators are then free to go on and successfully derail and kill a train load of people. OK, it's a fairly unlikely real world scenario today if we are thinking of the context of Nazis, however it may not be such an unlikely scenario if we change the actors and props to a more contemporary context.
Let's now consider another alternative to the railway scenario. Supposing instead that the rail points between the train and the unaware workers are set to divert the train cart down a different line thus averting disaster. Again our saviour is unaware of this fact or worse still is of the belief that the points are set such that the workers will meet their destiny when in fact they are set such that the workers would be saved. In the latter case, our would-be saviour would be compelled to switch the points based on his belief, but in doing so would seal the fate of our rail workers. In the former case he may have in fact killed his son or an innocent bystander when in fact the workers are in no danger. Now we start to see that with every moral dilemma, in the real world at least, we can't know all of the factors that are critical to the outcomes. It is also reality that all too often intervention i.e. action, in fact turns out to be a moral travesty. The would-be saviour is not in control of everything in the scenario nor are they aware of everything and thus they cannot be held responsible for a situation not of their making, in my opinion. A passive observer has no impact upon a system thus the system remains the product of the histories of the actors in the system and thus if any responsibility maybe apportioned it must be to them. Does this make a case for not acting to intervene ever? I don't believe so. What I have done here is to show that complex situations that for which we cannot be fully aware of we should not simply jump aboard the action wagon but watch peacefully and passively and learn. In war and conflict actors following the action course are almost always the ones doing the killing or at least supporting it. These scenarios are vastly more complex than in our railroad scenarios yet the moral actors are always those with guns that choose not to use them, inaction. It is the same principle in peaceful non-cooperative protest. Protesters pursue their peaceful course of action and in doing so expose the immorality of their opponents who choose the course of physical intervention. Another example is the role of international obervers in conflict zones.
Many people try to persuade us that inaction is a form of complicity. I reject this notion on the grounds that I think it is willful ignorance of the factors of a situation that is tantamount to complicty and in order not to engage in such ignorance we must observe and learn.
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.
