This essay was originally inspired as a comment on BooMan’s recent piece, Bedwetters.
In it, he summarized the latest in a series of Ratpublican statements regarding “Democrat defeatism”. Like how ending the Iraq misadventure will invite further terrorist attacks. Booman of course disagreed. He is a good Dem, although I can see cracks appearing in that facade. However, I have another take on this.
In a strange way, the Republicans are quite correct here.
They do not know how or why they are correct, but they are.
From the mouths of boobs.
Read on for more.
Without a sea change in American culture…a change from a society based entirely on massive overconsumption, a change from the media propaganda (sometimes called “advertising”) that promotes this overconsumption, a change from the basic international tactic of economic imperialism that is used to fuel that society…the ultimately unwinnable war with the Third World will continue.
Always been outnumbered, soon to be outgunned.
The Third World War.
A palliative regime change that does NOT address these issues will change nothing as far as al Queda and the other nascent resistance movements are concerned. (Read South/Central/Caribbean America there, just for starters.)…and except for the more serious Greeners, I hear next to NOTHING on these subjects from Dem pols. No doubt because they are subjects that will lose rather than gain votes from the Hogmerican mainstream.
Given that continuing policy, the Ratpub approach is the ONLY way to sustain it. Not that this approach will work, long-term. There is no solution other than rejoining the rest of humanity and redistributing the wealth, a direction that is not, on the evidence of my own travels through all levels of this society, even remotely about to happen in Hogmerica. Still swilling down the pig juice, from the ghettoes right on through to the gated communities. “At least we’re better off than THEY are!!!” is the American mantra, intoned over messes of contaminated meat and through the fog of Big Pharma-hyped meds and lousy beer. Right.
There is no appeasing the hungry and/or the many-times bereaved.
Bet on it.
We either have to kill ’em all and let God (Insert your own appropriate god here…Mammon, Satan, Jehova…) sort ’em out or fess up to our 300+ years worth of sins and take real steps towards redemption.
Real, practical steps.
Like…pulling in our belts and slimming down.
RADICALLY.
Like…eliminating the Usurocracy that really runs this country.
We RUN on debt.
A bad tactic, as any hard-working person will tell you if he or she has a goddamned brain left in their head.
But…NOOOOOOOOO…
And why?
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GET ELECTED WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THOSE WHO SIT AT THE TOP OF THIS ROTTED PYRAMID GAME.
Personally, I am thinking of writing in Donald Trump for every primary or election we have over the next year or so.
Why not?
May as well get real.
He is a fake billionaire.
A BULLionaire, when you get right down to it.
And we are a fake country.
The perfect face of Big Brother.
Reagan with a scowl.
TRUMP FOR PREZNIT!!! LET’S GET REAL!!!
Yup.
THAT’S the ticket!!!
Or…one of these weak-spirited DemRat motherfuckers has to find some backbone and stand up.
Strong.
So far?
Nope.
The only one with the rhetorical skill and talent to pull it off?
Obama.
But will he?
On his track record so far?
Nope.
Surprise me, Obama.
Surprise me.
Or…not.
We shall see…
Plan A Lite or a real Cultural Revolution.
Your choice now, brother.
Your choice.
Blink…and we are as good as dead.
Bet on it.
You are smart enough to know this, and you spent enough skin color-dictated time beneath the underdog to be hip to what is really up. (The title of Charles Mingus’s largely fictional autobiography…Beneath The Underdog. Where the REAL shit happens.)
Surprise me.
You are better than what you have shown so far, sir.
Surprise me.
Surprise us ALL.
VAYA!!!
Or…pass the pork, Mama, ‘cuz we are in for a LONG winter.
Your choice.
Go for it.
Later…
S.
Yup.
YOUR choice.
In your OWN life.
BACK ON UP OFF OF THE FEED TROUGH OR END UP IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
Your choice.
Yup.
Pigpigpigpigpigpigpig!!!
Have fun…
AG
I have appreciated your perspective and analysis for a while now. Thanks.
You have written about Clinton as a consummate politician arriving at her moment. My understanding has been that you perceive something within her that you expect (hope) that once she is president, she will get us to turn off the lights.
Now you write of Obama as perhaps the one to guide us through a sea change. Not Clinton, but Obama? Have you changed your thinking? And if so, why?
Why Obama?
In this post?
Because I think that he has the position and the skills to run this game. I believe that Ms. Clinton owes too many favors to the rot at the top, and will NOT be able to run it.
Not as effectively as Obama, anyway.
BUT…I still think Ms. Clinton will be the winner.
And I still hope that Obama will be her running mate.
She could then stand at the top…regally, queenly “Presidential”…and let Obama do the talking.
If this were to work out, we would be looking at the good possibility of 16 years of Dem rule.
Not my ideal scenario, but about as good as it’s going to get.
We shall see…
AG
This sounds a bit different to me than what you were thinking in Hillary Clinton. Eleanor Roosevelt’s revenge., so I was curious about what had changed.
Well…things have changed a little bit.
Like I said then…Obama has talent.
AG
Let’s start at the top, here. What are the chances of a terrorist attack on American soil? About zero–at this stage of the war (any attack that occurs will be yet another black-ops/false-flag/Reichstag-fire operation)–and Iraq will not change that at all, no matter what happens there.
Why? Because the War is out at the periphery–in the resource regions themselves. It is a war of mainforce against guerrillas, with the stakes being domination or denial of those resources.
Things will tip when the US Army breaks for real. It is already very close. Withdrawing from Iraq would spare them that, but require the creation of a new strategy to cope with the loss of control over Iraqi oil. The powers that be are currently of two minds–whence the fight in the media and Congress over this.
But on the one hand, there IS NO back-up strategy for the loss of Iraq. This is the Dems weakest point, because they cannot explain what they are going to do after getting the troops out. There are only two choices, and one is unpalatable, while the other is unmentionable.
The unpalatable choice amounts to ceeding control to Europe and Asia–How likely is that? The unmentionable choice is already the plan of the stay-the-course faction.
The stay-the-course faction has already looked ahead to what to do when the US Army breaks. The plan now is to REPLACE the Army with private military organizations. Blackwater is only the beginning. The key advantage of private armies is that they can be recruited from anywhere in the world.
At least as important: They are answerable to no one.
If this sounds a little like Rome hiring barbarian armies for its defense, it should, for the strategic situation is similar: The US State has decayed too far for it to be done any other way. The Citizenry itself is the Corporatized State’s ultimate enemy (just as it became Rome’s enemy) and while a citizen army would have been fine for the early stages of the resource wars–if it had worked–it will not be fine for the later stages.
There is a chance this was the plan all along–at least among the PNAC extremists.
In Iraq the US will soon move inevitably to a policy of depopulation–straight genocide and desertification. In this, as in so much else, we will see an echo of the Vietnam War. Will it work this time, when it didn’t work then? Mostly it is a question of time–who has it and who doesn’t. In any case, it will be implemented incrementally. At some point Iraqi insurgents will be forced to find new tactics: They will have to find a way to credibly threaten the shutdown of Mideast oil altogether. This can be parlayed into support that will enable them to counter US measures. Things will heat up.
But slowly. Time is on the insurgents’ side–the year 2007 will finish with the US sinking into a deep economic crisis with no way out. The US will want to accelerate its military initiatives, but find it difficult.
Those used to a Western way of war will imagine the US’ opponents striking quickly, at the center. US port oil infrastructure might seem a good target. But if that happens, you will know the war is almost at its very end. As long as the US has global military capabilities, it makes more sense to wear down those capabilities from as far from the center as possible.
Always, the key consideration for the opposition is to avoid presenting a substantial target on which overwhelming force can be brought to bear.
Oh yes, the Presidential candidates. Well, don’t expect them to say anything that pertains to the matters of life and death. I doubt they even have any thoughts.
You write:
“Terrorist” attacks are terrifying by definition, no matter by whom they are organized or how they are managed. And with the disinfo spin currently in the elctronic wind about “on a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to shake the Roman throne” (Brought to you by those disinfo specialists, Foxed News.
Among many others.), I would say that the attacks have already begun. Attacks on the MINDS of Americans. Should they become corporeal…so much the worse.
No less an establishment spinmeister spook than George Tenet…an ENEMY of BushCo despite his Medal of Whatever, a representative of the mediocracy-run PermaGov that has opposed Bush (Deviously and until recently relatively unsuccessfully), has recently expressed his puzzlement that, since 2001, Al Qaeda has not sent “suicide bombers to cause chaos in a half-dozen American shopping malls on any given day.”
I have been expressing similar puzzlement since soon after 9/11, as I have been expressing further puzzlement over why the 9/11 attack was not mounted on the Indian Point nuclear plant 30 miles or so north of Manhattan rather than on the World Trade Center.
Why take out 3000 in a symbolic action when you can take out 3 million or more and totally crippple your enemy in one blow?
Is a puzzlement.
To say the least.
I can come to only three possible answers.
1-The people who planned 9/11 are averse to taking human life, but felt compelled to defend themselves and their culture. It was a necessary compromise.
2-Backchannel ‘diplomacy’ has arranged a set of guide rules for terrorist actions. Effectively WMD us in any way, shape, manner or form and we WILL nuke you in an indescriminate and brutally effective manner. The words “glass parking lot”, “Mecca” and “Medina” were quite likely closely juxtaposed in such communications.
Or concepts to that effect.
Bet on it
3-It was an entirely inside job that was designed to mobilize the American sleeple, not completely cripple the society.
These three ideas are not all mutually exclusive, of course.
And…
Do not underestimate the intelligence or empathy of ALL people who are involved in politics because of the almost autistic blankness of some. Things may go much as you say…at which point we may as well kneel down, put our heads between our knees and kiss our collective asses goodbye…or they may not.
Otherwise, your take on what is happening is right on the money. This IS Rome redux, with one new wiild card.
Nuclear weapons and other types of WMDs.
And that changes EVERYTHING.
the US is conducting against its own citizens, and “real” terrorist attacks–attacks conducted against the US by its opponents.
“Terrorist” attacks are terrifying by definition, no matter by whom they are organized or how they are managed. And with the disinfo spin currently in the elctronic wind about
I think it does matter how they are organized, and by whom, and for what purpose, if you want to understand how the war is being conducted.
Why have there been no further attacks in the US since 9/11?
In the first place, I think 9/11 was one of our own, and there has not yet been a need for further national-unity moments. But it is also possible that it was an attack by real opponents, who discovered they had been piggy-backed. The Israelis certainly had foreknowledge of the attacks, and if they passed their info to the US, piggy-backing would have been possible. In this scenerio the attackers were surprised and dismayed to discover that the attacks were too easy to conduct, and far more effective than they should have been. Islamic militants routinely claim credit for their successes. In this case the attackers would have realized they had miscalculated, and thus kept silent–as they did.
Either way, 9/11 signaled that a strategy of attacking the US in North America would be incorrect. Thus there have been no more attacks, and won’t be, until the war reaches its end.
A footnote: A time may come when a direct attack on North America will be able to knock the bottom out of US military capability. But that will be at the end of the war, if it comes at all. Not before.
The US has been waving nukes, but not using them. If the US uses them–for example, in Iran–the strategy will change again. In that case, nuclear destruction of North American infrastructure becomes more likely.
But, as you imply, short of that, it is the opponents’ clear intention to avoid presenting a nuclear target, and avoid creating a large provocation. The capture last month of the British sailors by Iran, and their Easter release, is proof of the strategic concept, and an artful example of how it is managed.
“Oh yes, the Presidential candidates . . . ” –you caught me in a bit of snark. The US is pretending to be a democracy, yet the issues that cut to the heart of national survival are never discussed. Arguably, Cheney famous statement–that the “American way of life” is non-negotiable–is all the hint anyone really needs. But a statement of whims–sorry, strategic aims–is not enough: National survival depends on realities. And those are not even hinted at.
Nuclear weapons create uncertainty. On the one hand they constrain, but on the other . . . We are certainly in a more dangerous period now than during the height of the Cold War, yet fewer people in the US are paying attention. But none of America’s opponents, and not many in the US, want to move directly to a nuclear-exchange scenerio: The drawbacks are obvious and the benefits are doubtful.
Reading over your post, it occurs to me that we are probably not paying enough attention to how the information war against the US citizenry is being conducted. I don’t mean just debunking the lies–which is good. I think it may be possible to go further, and see the underlying narrative, and strategic objectives.
The insurgents in Iraq plainly understand a good bit of this: When the “surge” was announced they wasted no time stepping up their attack and making displays of American ineffectiveness. Incidently, that they COULD make such displays suggests that they are not near fighting all-out.
You write:
First…the true “opponents” of the people of the United States ARE those in the PermaGov. Most of those who are fighting against the occupation forces in Iraq and elsewhere just want the people of the United States to simply get on up off of the food trough and leave something for the rest of the world. They are our ALLIES, in reality, because we damned well better pull it in before the entire country dies of overconsumption. And quite possibly takes the rest of the world down with it.
That info war of which you speak? It is only being used because it works. It is cleaner and more efficient than any other approach to the problem of essentially enslaving the people of this country.
So far.
If it stops working so well…and it appears that this is exactly what is happening as the lies an failures of BushCo mount past any spinnable solution…THEN you will see some terrorism.
With a capital “T”, And that stands for “trouble”. Right Here in River City.
Bet on it.
And…
Although a loathsome man, Cheney is a VERY good politician. And he was quite correct in his assessment of the non-negotiability of the American overconsumer society. Of course, the forces that he represents created and maintain that lifestyle AND its non-negotiability in their own interests, but he didn’t mention that fact. The vast majority of the American people are enslaved, held prisoner in chains of debt, ill health, miseducation, overwhelming media spin and fear. And that fact is not only non-negotiable…in a major political campaign, it is literally UNMENTIONABLE.
First of all, to do so would bring the full weight of the media down upon the candidate’s head. Guaranteed. The people who work in the media are themselves enslaved in the system…they are the house servants of the PermaGov, the overseers, and have concomitantly better living conditions. On no level whatsoever can they allow a change in that system. They do not need to even be dinly aware of what they are doing. They react like a vampire to the threat of light.
“ATTACK!!!”
Secondly, to speak of such things would dry up the campaign coffers almost instantly. Big money will not hear of such ideas.
And third, the sleeple themselves are so addicted to their numbing drugs…mediocre automobiles, bad beer, mindless entertainment, etc…that they will turn off ANYONE who suggests otherwise.
Junky America.
Ever try to deal with a real junky?
Fuggedaboudit.
1000 excuses, and then immediately back to the junk.
That is why I cling to the hope that perhaps some of the misdirection emanating from the Clinton and Obama camps is just that. A realization that in no way is there any practical possibility of openly discussing these problems and still winning an election.
Only the sly will survive.
I mean…you know damned well that the Clintons are not stupid people. Neither is Obama. If we can see these problems, so can they. My own approach to problems is to walk up and smack them in the face. And I live in a cave in the Bronx at least partially due to that tactical approach.
I don’t mind.
I am independently poor.
But that is NO way for a politician to work.
Because it will NOT work.
Politicians in a vote-driven system need to appeal to a majority.
End of story.
Or…not get elected.
So it goes.
in a major political campaign, it is literally UNMENTIONABLE.
Well, yes, you are right, I only meant that a democracy cannot be successfully run this way.
And that fact is not only non-negotiable…in a major political campaign, it is literally UNMENTIONABLE.
Well, yes, but it does make the system disfunctional.
That is why I cling to the hope that perhaps some of the misdirection emanating from the Clinton and Obama camps is just that. . . .
Only the sly will survive.
I accept this possibility, but I have now way to assess it. Except to say, if that is what they are doing, it won’t be enough.
But I think nothing will be enough. Or: This is all damage limitation, only. Real possibilities will have to come from elsewhere.
The biggest ship ever built.
The command structure that is needed to run it is huge. Orders given filter down through literally thousands of levels before the ship actually changes course, and every major order is extensively mulled and endlessly compromised before it is given.
You say that “Real possibilities will have to come from elsewhere.”
From where?
Outside of an undetected iceberg or successful torpedo attack.
From elsewhere?
WHERE else?
I am serious here. This is not snark.
With the exception of some of the left blogosphere and those parts of the media (Olbermann, Seymour Hersh, the various political “comics” coming out of the Jon Stewart camp)…growing, but well less than 5% of of the total output of out astoundingly powerful hypnomedia…aside from those forces, frow whence is this new set of thought processes to come?
From what part of the system will they come that has any power to actually DO something?
Hell, Gaianne…all you have to do is walk down any ghetto street in America and just listen to what is being said in the bars and laundromats to hear the truth of the matter.
Those who live beneath the underdog know what the fuck is up. BEEN knowing it for 300+ years. Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X (among many others) said that this system was eventually going to have to either reform or collapse.
And who listened?
Who REALLY listened?
On the evidence of where we are at now…not the people who really steer the ship.
Bet on it.
But THEY are the ones who can actually get something done.
The only ones.
No one else.
Those who are either born to power or those who have…like the Clintons and Barack Obama…actually paid the necessary dues and hustled their asses off to get in a position of real power.
You say that no matter what they are doing, it will not be enough.
Possibly.
But it is the only game in town save collapse or revolution, and revolution is decidedly NOT in the cards here.
No so long as 80+% of the people have enough to not only eat, but enough to eat gluttonously.
Fat people are revolting, granted.
But they do NOT revolt.
Living high on the Hogamerican bandwagon, they can be led.
By a carat or two on a stick.
But they will not lead.
You can lead a hog to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.
For that…you need…
What?
Whom?
My take?
The ONLY possibilities, inadequate though they may seem to be?
Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Sorry…wish it were otherwise.
But it ain’t.
And you know what?
Those people I mentioned earlier?
The ones on the street?
In the ghettoes?
THEY agree.
And it is they…black and latino, mostly…who will put the Dems in power this time.
Watch.
They do not show up very heavily in polls, have historically not voted much except in crunch times, and they count for amazingly little in the prognostications and plans of the white, upper middle class, middle aged pols and pol managers who run the big show.
Ain’t gonna be no Dem Convention in East St. Louis or Bed Stuy any time soon, understand.
But they will LANDSLIDE the motherfucker if the Dems do the right thing.
And THEN there will be some course corrections.
Bet on THAT, too.
Enough for everyone?
Nope.
More than any since the New Deal?
betcha.
Enough for us to survive and continue to evolve?
Let us pray.
My guess?
Yup.
Ain’t over yet, this experiment.
Not by a long shot.
Later…
AG