Why Constant War?

Why is the United Stated constantly engaged in war? Jeffrey Sachs answered this question in a discussion with Glenn Greenwald:

The fundamental problem is that American foreign policy is against the interests of the American people, and therefore it is based on continuous lying. This is not new to Ukraine or to Gaza. Of course, it was part of the Iraq War. It was part of Syria. How many Americans understand that Obama ordered the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government? Almost not discussed. U.S. foreign policy is based on the idea that the U.S. should be the world's hegemonic power, the unchallenged, unrivaled power in every region of the world: full-spectrum dominance, meaning economic, military, technological, diplomatic, and financial dominance in every part of the world. It's completely delusional. It's delusional. Well, maybe there was a brief period after World War II when the U.S. stood dominant because the U.S. hadn't been destroyed militarily. Maybe there was a moment, and there was, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when the U.S., in a way, was unrivaled. But life is a little bit more complicated than the United States holding all the pieces in the world. Since we don't, trying to do so means nonstop wars. And if it was explained to the American people, “Hey, Americans, how do you feel about nonstop wars so that the U.S. can be the unchallenged power of the whole world?” People would say, “Are you crazy? Leave me alone. I gotta go back to work. I'm trying to raise my kids. You stop sending us so many threats, taxes, trillions of military spending, and so on. They never buy this stuff.

And so, the whole thing is based on lies. We have to go into Iraq. We know it's not us in Syria, it's the Russians in Syria. It's not us in Ukraine, it's Putin, unprovoked, and on and on. It's such sad nonsense. But since it's based on lies, it has to be secret. Also, it cannot be that there's open discourse. You cannot allow open discourse when the lying is so relentless. And so, it comes naturally that if you want to do something that is not possible, that is delusional and is not what the public wants, and you have at least a formal structure of democracy that we have elections and so forth and there's supposed to be some voice of the people, then you have to lie, and when you have to lie, then everything has to be confidential. Then the worst crime in America, as you know very well because you reported on it more than anyone else in our country, is that you have to make the greatest criminal, the one who tells the truth, or the one who leaks the truth, or the one who exposes the lie, and that becomes the modus operandi of the Imperial State. So, to my mind, the whole thing starts with the wrong premise, which is that the only way the United States can be safe in the world is to run the world, which is both impossible extraordinarily costly, and extraordinarily threatening to our survival.

Continue ReadingWhy Constant War?

Just Say No to Tribes

Just because I don't like Coke doesn't mean that I like Pepsi. People need to take a deep breath and step out of their tribes. Doing this will add 40 points to their IQ scores.

[Added May 18 2024]

Being in a tribe is mighty potent hallucinogen. How potent? Monty Python & friends illustrate with this Eric the Viking skit:

Continue ReadingJust Say No to Tribes

Meanwhile, Librarians at Public Libraries Work Overtime to Protect Us from Harmful Books

As reported by FAIR, in "All Is Not Quiet In the Library Catalogs: Navigating the changing landscape of library cataloging":

Traditional cataloging practice requires the cataloger to describe the book as objectively as possible; there are even specific guidelines reminding catalogers not to select subject headings (those hyperlinked topic descriptors in the record) based on their own values and beliefs. One of the first questions I was asked in my hiring interview was to confirm that I would agree to catalog materials that I, personally, found offensive. After all, libraries—and, by extension, catalogers—are supposed to be guardians of free speech and intellectual freedom. We do not know who will be looking for the materials and for what purpose, and so we have to be fair, accurate, and objective in order to make it easier for the material to be found. But it seems that now the overriding duty of the cataloger is to protect the patrons from the harm that the records (not even the materials!) may cause them.

In the discussions I mentioned above, fellow catalogers were unabashedly stating that certain marginalized groups should get to decide how a book should be labeled. If a cataloger who is a member of a marginalized social group believes the book in question is harmful or offensive, he is fully in the right to add a note in the catalog stating his beliefs. Thus we now have four books in the international catalog (used by libraries worldwide) with the label “Transphobic works”. Several books that are critical of the current gender affirmation care model now have the subject heading “Transphobia”. These books are not about transphobia, so the subject heading is likely being used as a way to warn the reader of the record (and potentially the librarian choosing which books to order for the library) that these are “bad books” and should not be read or purchased.

Continue ReadingMeanwhile, Librarians at Public Libraries Work Overtime to Protect Us from Harmful Books

Republicans Rethink the Benefits of Censorship

Congressional Democrats are still the all-star censorship team, but Matt Taibbi points out that two-faced Republicans are working hard to try to play catch-up. The title to his article is "More Republicans Betray Causes They Supported Ten Minutes AgoThe Great Bipartisan Constitution-shredding project of 2024 continues at breakneck speed."

Whispers about familiar villains preparing new versions of the election censorship programs that animated the Twitter Files grew louder last week, when Virginia Senator Mark Warner let slip at a conference that the FBI and DHS have renewed “voluntary” communications with Internet platforms.

Republicans who objected to the last programs on First Amendment grounds are now rushing to out-censor the censors. Between renewal of FISA surveillance, the depressingly bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act, and now a proposed No Fly List for campus protesters, most all of congress apart from a few libertarian holdouts is signed up for the project of turning War on Terror machinery inward. Not exactly the surprise of the century, but still, sheesh.

Continue ReadingRepublicans Rethink the Benefits of Censorship

More Undeniable Evidence of a Media Narrative

Nellie Bowles discusses the BLM riots of 2020 with Bari Weiss of Honestly:

"More than explicit lies about what happened in 2020, howw the mainstream media contralled the narrative was by not covering it. That was the most important thing. It was to ignore it."

Continue ReadingMore Undeniable Evidence of a Media Narrative