Rethinking "Globalism"

With the attack on Syria, the sending of ships to DPRK waters, and the recent upsurge in the success of "nationalist" parties, I have perhaps done my own 180 (or perhaps not, being a Gemini, and thus capable of holding opposing opinions at the same time). Globalism likely could serve sinister purposes, but it doesn't have to.

It seems that in many ways, the nation-state is too strong, and the money wasted on military"defense" of these states in some cases is astronomical. Some commentators claim we are headed for a "New World Order" of "Global Government." Perhaps a case is to be made for such. However, simply in the case of the supposed "North American Union" flaws in logic can be detected.

How is it that this "North American Union" is being created, yet it is actually more difficult (since the 9/11 attacks) to cross borders in North America? Surely, that would be a sign of less integration rather than more. When I was young, no passport was needed to cross from the US into Canada. Now, for the most part, one is required.

At any rate, yes, a "Global Government" could be a tyranny upon every resident of planet earth. But it doesn't have to be. And more to the point, it could end war once and for all. Revolution, being a different matter, might not be ended - unless this government was designed well. I wouldn't have all the answers on how to design it, nor would I presume that should.

But this is part of my point. This government would have to not be a government of the corporations only, would have to take into consideration the concerns of the many over the few, and would certainly have to be very democratic. It would have to be stronger than the UN, but weaker than most national governments. Perhaps the US Articles of Confederation could serve as a guide. Or, perhaps some other system that allows for local-ism, but insists on the unity of the human race, as well as peace and security (including economic security) for all.

Or, perhaps it is just another one of my bad ideas....

politics is done in the darkness 1/27/17

Dr. Morris Berman: Welcome to Trumpland and the Post-American World

politics is done in the darkness podcast 12/7

(S)election 2016 briefly

Haven't posted here in a while, and thought this was the place for a brief post about the upcoming elections. We are in big trouble. And, in spite of the overwhelming conventional wisdom that has Clinton as the lesser evil, that likely is not the case. As Assange stated, "A vote for Hillary is a vote for endless, stupid war." While Trump at least wants to get along with Russia, Clinton wants to establish a no fly zone over Syria, which will mean direct confrontation with Russia. This is very dangerous.

And Trump is a disaster in every other way..... We the people, no matter the outcome, have already lost this election.

James Corbet on R2p

This one was really good. And it is true that both Amy Goodman and Chomsky were terrible on the Libyan war....

politics is done in the darkness podcast #7

After far too long, here is the 7th (I think) politics is done in the darkness podcast.

Ellen Brown says "print the money"

This comes form information clearinghouse. Ellen Brown says she agrees with, of all people, Trump, at least when he says, "print the money." I used to be completely on the other side of that debate, but Ellen Brown and others have changed my mind a little bit.

For instance, and this a bit tangential, for too long Hamilton has been portrayed as the villain, and Jefferson the hero - but is that really so? Probably not.

Redacted Tonight: Election Fraud Special Report! (You Won't Believe This)

Articles about "Deep State" reach mainstream

Below are links to two articles that mention the "deep state" by name. The first is from Pat Buchanan, who oddly enough I agree with from time to time, especially on foreign policy from about the 90s on. The second actually appeared in the New York Times. Written by Philip Giraldi, this article seems more interested in the US connection with other countries who also have a "deep state." But it does mention "the establishment" as a stand in for our "deep state."

"The Sea Island Conspiracy"

"America's Establishment has Embraced Deep States"

Lack of Democracy

Sometimes, when I'm motivated to write in this blog, I literally don't know where to start. I've probably used this next quote in other posts. I am often reminded of it. When George Carlin was on the Keith Olbermann show several years ago, at one point he told Olbermann very plainly, "This country is finished."   I would have to agree with Carlin if he meant the country is/was finished as a democracy. In fact, there have been scholarly studies suggesting just that. 

It could be argued that this concept is not new, as we have had academics tell us similar things even decades ago. For example, C Wright Mills wrote, The Power Elite in the 1950s. And I'm sure that some variation of the idea about the powerful elite of business, finance, and military interests dominating political life - of course with the help of the more staid media - has likely been with us for eons.

However, I would argue that in the US today (possibly other countries), things have gone way beyond that basic concept. It is such a big topic, and one is likely to have the scornful label of "conspiracy theorist" placed upon the one's self for even considering that our democracy might be corrupt beyond just the corruption of ordinary manipulation of opinion, and powerful persons having too great an influence on policy.

I tend to believe that at some point, I don't know when exactly, the very mechanics of our electoral democracy became corrupted. The first investigation into this that I am aware of was a book called, VoteScam: The Stealing of America. This book was written by two brothers, who having the experience of knowing some of the more radical politically minded people of the 1960s, decided that they should try to run an election campaign, just to record their experience. It was a way of testing whether they, two rather regular guys, could find the value, or lack thereof, of doing so.

According to them, they found out quite a bit more than they originally hoped to discover - namely that our elections are hopelessly corrupt. What was supposed to be a project to possibly write a book turned into a lifelong journey for them.

As they point out in the book, they believe they discovered sort of the pilot project for American democracy. Since then, as James Collier (one of the brothers who wrote the book) points out in various interviews, it has only gotten much worse.

I can't even recall if the electronic voting machines were introduced within the period covered in the book. Yet, at some point during the 1990s, these machines began to turn up in American polling places. The first time I remember reports of them appearing in the news was the election featuring Bush vs. Gore. For example, there was the voting machine that counted backwards.   By the time of the 2004 election, a great number of people had become suspicious of these machines, and believed they were being used to deliver elections to Republican candidates. Whether that is true or not, the machines are design in away that would allow either party, or potential outsiders, to basically rig an election.

In fact, those who were concerned with election integrity around this time were almost able to force a Republican tech consultant to appear in court in order for him to tell whatever he might know about alleged tampering with the 2004 election. Notice the circumstances of his not appearing in court.

At any rate, it would seem that the election result could be anything the machine says it is. I don't believe we select the president anymore, and I'm uncertain how much say we have in the lesser offices. Put this together with the work of people like C Wright Mills, and there is very little democracy regardless of the election results. This is truly a time of universal deceit.

My Two Cents #6

Latest "My Two Cents" political vlog style video.

Addition of podcast archive player in side links.

I've added a player that will play all of my archived podcasts. It basically will play one at a time in order, but one could skip through them as one likes, if one is inclined to take a listen. I've changed my mind slightly again, and I will continue doing the "Politics is done in the darkness" podcast, however - only in audio format. I feel inclined to focus more on this particular blog, as like many others, I feel it is important enough to document the slow decline of the American Empire. I believe this is a decline that will not be reversed, but I could be wrong about that. Either way, it is now important enough to me to do this, and have my thoughts on our decaying society documented, if only for my own benefit. (*See archive player in side links)

The Rise of Discontentment and the Continuing Unraveling from the "Centrist" Establishment

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was once quoted as saying that the collapse of the USSR was one of the major geopolitical disasters of the century. What many neglect to mention are his next few lines, which describe the reasons he said this. It wasn't exactly because of a fondness for communism that he brought this up. His reasons were: a) the fact that so many citizens rapidly found themselves outside the borders of their former country. b) the fact that so many were driven into poverty within a very short time after the collapse. I would believe that his point (b) is the more important point. (Note: For English subtitles turn on YouTube captions in controls of video.)

Others have echoed this sentiment in different ways, and even sometimes for different reasons. For instance, James Petras in an article circa 2012, notes that the fall of the USSR may have contributed to the further rise of neo-liberalism in the US and Europe. He particularly is displeased with those academics (and others) who chose to vilify the USSR, and took an anticommunist line, which may have aided the neo-liberals rise. As Petras writes, "The entire army of impotent ‘anti-Stalinist’ leftists, comfortably established in the universities, brayed till they were hoarse against the ‘neo-liberal offensive’ and the ‘need for an anti-capitalist strategy’, without the tiniest reflection over how they had contributed to undermining the very welfare state that had educated, fed and employed the workers."

For decades, arguably until the time of Reagan (although probably earlier), the Soviet Union provided a model that had to be vilified and guarded against, as far as the US and Western European political class was concerned. One way of doing this was to provide high standards of living (relatively) for their populations. Of course, perhaps another less positive method of defending against this concern was to go after those who saw the potential of communism, and sought to apply some what was pragmatic about communism to Western European societies. Thus, we have the reports of things like "Operation Gladio" that took place in Europe.

In short, there was a modicum of balance in the world, and although the US did things like the Vietnam War, the USSR tended to provide balance in the sphere of foreign policy as well. For example, we should take notice that it was after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the time of Gorbachev, that the US decided to begin the long program of the destruction of Iraq. It is an open question I pose: Could the US elite have   given us the first Gulf War if the USSR was not so weakened? I contend that they would not have been able to do such a thing without confronting the risk of global war.

Therefore, I would argue that we can trace out current set of circumstances, at least in part, back to the collapse of the USSR. I wouldn't claim it was a chain reaction, but would say without the USSR, the US and Western Europe were left unconstrained in the economic and military sphere to a large degree. Since then, we have had not only an endless cycle of wars, but increased pressure for neoliberalism that has decimated the middle class, and certainly harmed the poor.

Shortly after the first Gulf War, circa 1992, Gore Vidal wrote an essay entitled, "Monotheism and its Discontents."  I don't exactly agree with the way he tied his entire argument to religion, however, he certainly seems to play the role of a latter day Nostradamus. He was critiquing what he saw happening during the 1992 election. He began to see the outlines of two parties, not the phony two-party (which is one-party) of the current system of his time, but of two distinct parties. For him, the embodiment of one party, which he called the "party of man" was on display in the person of  Jerry Brown, who was running a quixotic attempt at a campaign for president. Pat Buchanan was doing the same, in Vidal's terminology, for the "party of God."

As I've said, I'm not sure how much religion has to do with it, but if one looks closely, we can see that two distinct parties did (and do) exist, and more than 20 years later, they are confromting one another yet again on the fringes of the political establishment. Except, it is no longer very "fringe." For Vidal's "party of man" we have Bernie Sanders standing in for this election cycle. And until Super Tuesday, the media had to very much count him in as having a chance to gain the nomination of the Democratic Party. Even more amazing, standing in for the "party of God" we have the Donald Trump. What either of these two think about religion is irrelevant.

If I could be so bold as to attempt to summarize what I think Vidal was getting at, the  "party of man" wants things like campaign finance reform, rights for the many, a general enlightenment if you will, while the "party of God" would want to curtail immigration, to scapegoat the other, and generally be comfortable with a more authoritarian society. Of course, as Vidal pointed out, the "party of God" also seemed to be against the continuance of an American Empire abroad.

But rather than put words into Vidal's mouth, let me share some of what he wrote about these parties. Of the "party of God," Vidal wrote, "Buchanan speaks for the party of God--the sky-god with his terrible hatred of women, blacks, gays, drugs, abortion, contraception, gambling--you name it, he hates it. Buchanan is a worthy peddler of hate. He is also in harmony not only with the prejudices and superstitions of a good part of the population but, to give him his due, he is a reactionary in the good sense--reacting against the empire in favour of the old Republic..." Of the "party of man," he wrote, "The party of man would like to re-establish a representative government firmly based upon the Bill of Rights..." This isn't much to go on, but if one reads the essay, Vidal gives a pretty explanation of what he means by all of this.

Rather than attempt to tie this together on my own, I'll leave this essay with some of what Vidal wrote from his essay. He certainly said it better than I can. Near the end of his essay, Vidal makes a point that is difficult for me, but none-the-less something that leaps out of the page given our current politics. He writes, "For once, it's all out there, perfectly visible, perfectly plain for those who can see. That Brown and Buchanan will not figure in the election does not alter the fact that, for the first time in 140 years, we now have, due in part to their efforts, the outline of two parties. Each knows the nature of its opposite, and those who are wise will not try to accommodate or compromise the two but will let them, at last, confront each other."

Now that is such a frightening prospect, that I can understand why the establishment would rather do all it can to provide us with a comfortable "centrist" for the next election.

Election analysis from WSWS

Here is another article about the  perceived chaos within the US political establishment, and the dangers of the rise of Trump. This one is also based on an historical perspective, but from a different point of view. It is a paradox, as how can a candidate that is like a wrecking ball to the Republican Party be entirely bad.

Analysis from David Stockman

Although I am not a supporter of the Trump, this article makes a lot of sense. And it was worth it for the historical background alone. Link here.

Politics is done in the darkness audios merged into vlog

I've decided to merge my two political audio/video series together. So, from now on, the "politics is done in the darkness" audio/video will be merged into "my two cents" political vlog videos. Here is the link.

On the"refugee crisis"

In one of his essays, I seem to recall that Gore Vidal pointed out that to really solve a political problem, one has to get to the root of the problem. In fact, if memory serves, he had a really clever definition of the word "root," which went back to either the Greek or Latin, well, root. I can't remember the definition well enough right now to summarize it here.

At any rate, what is at the root of the so- called, "refugee crisis," is the fact that the US and some other countries decided that "Assad must go" and attempted to overthrow his government, using mainly the same methods they used to overthrow the government of Libya. As an aside, notice how they now have to send military aviation into Libya again to wreck the lives of those poor people even further. This suggests that perhaps they did not get the outcome in Libya that was desired from the first military operation, a military operation, by the way, which was disguised as the "Arab Spring."

So, to solve the so-called "refugee crisis" the US must decide it isn't really intent on overthrowing Assad, and then, at the very least, allow the Russians, Syrians, and Iranians to rebuild the country, which will allow refugees to return home. Very simple, except the US, for some reason, can not let go of the idea that "Assad must go." This, even after it would seem that they must not have gotten what they wanted out of their Libya project, as evidenced by the fact that they have to send military aviation into Libya again.

The real question(s) is/are: Why does Assad have to go? Why did Qaddafi have to go? And, even, why did they believe Saddam Hussein had to go? (Even I think Saddam was far worse than either of the other two.) The "refugee crisis" could not exist if the west stopped creating refugees.

more on plan "b"

This is from the WSWS. So, the question remains, why would the Russians agree to(and even be a party to the initiation of) this ceasefire agreement? On the other hand, perhaps those that say the agreement will be interpreted properly, that is in a way that permits the Russians and Syrians to continue the air campaign (and even ground campaign) against certain specified groups within Syria if those groups insist on continuing the fight, are correct. I would tend to doubt it though.

plan b in Syria

This was speculation before, but apparently, if the report is correct, John Kerry has come out and said there is a plan "b" for Syria. Plan "b" looks suspiciously like what some have considered to be the larger plan for the region all along.