Reflections on Political Insults and Incoherence
Perhaps my writing and my sharing of information that I find relevant during this Orwellian period (hopefully not an epoch) in United States history is proving somewhat meaningful, at least as gauged by the reactions of those who oppose my perspectives. This morning an Obama - Clinton supporter called me a fascist for opposing Clinton’s efforts to intervene in Syria and yesterday several somewhat more intellectually inclined opponents of anything Trump tried to convince me that the intelligence community driven Russia-gate soft coup attempt was fully validated. The latter with cogent arguments, which I respect, the former with the traditional insult driven, factually deficient drivel that is all too common among internet trolls. Actually, I do not react as negatively to trolls as do many others. If they are reading what I publish then perhaps over the long term some of it will sink in, and they do give me insights into the tactics favored by those on behalf of whom they troll; valuable data.
The attitude of many who for decades have been aware of the malevolence of the politicized leadership of the United States intelligence community (and I exclude military and naval intelligence services from that characterization), who have criticized it vehemently but now support it because they hate the successful presidential candidate they opposed, says something important, not only about them, but about the vagaries of human nature. As the behaviorists who craft the propaganda that has captivated them know, used efficiently it could well captivate most of us too (it probably does). So giving in to the reactive anger that troll posts generate and to the hurtful personal comments by people we care about but who have become virulent and insensitive in their opinions would be falling into the behaviorist’s web. Better to wait and respond thoughtfully than to lash out in a comparable manner, at least if we want to propagate our perspectives.
Ok, so, what makes me different, if it does?
In reaching my permanently evolving conclusions I rely on my experiences, what I see and hear, and what I can verify first. Then on data that does not clash with the reality that I am sure of, but without ignoring that I, like anyone else can also be wrong, can also be manipulated. To me, the mainstream media has long been unreliable, especially given the fact that it has long been subverted through payments by the United States intelligence and financial communities (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird) but there are now a growing number of alternative sources of information from which to choose, many as bad as or even worse than the mainstream, but some, quite good and quite productive. One has to learn to evaluate and cull them, but even the worse have their uses, if we want more than mere echoes of what we already think.
What I know of the 2016 election for sure is that the Clintons, their advisors and the DNC cheated during the primary season and by interpolation, probably cheated during the actual presidential electoral campaign and are doing so now. That the DNC is seeking to cover up that fact by doing everything they can to polarize the United States electorate. The latter conclusion comes from the dozens of daily DNC related emails I receive soliciting funds justifying the requests with virulently polarizing language. I also know that the DNC, in pending litigation (see, e.g., https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-media-blackout-on-the-dnc-lawsuit-proves-that-it-is-nuclear-32305f574f6e), has taken the position that the Democratic Party, and by extrapolation, all political parties, have the legal right to manipulate elections and lie to the electorate to accomplish their goals. I analyze what is currently occurring based on those predicates.
With reference to interference in democratic elections by intelligence agencies and foreign operatives, the more recent facts I know involve participation by the Obama – Clinton administration in coups in the Ukraine and Honduras, in “soft coups” in Paraguay and Brazil, and in political and economic destabilization activities in Brazil and Argentina, as well as in funding of opposition groups in Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. I also remember Radio Free Europe and Radio Marti (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_y_Televisi%C3%B3n_Mart%C3%AD).
I know that not all foreign political interaction is inappropriate. Were that the case, foreign relations ought not to exist. Every country has and should have political and economic interactions with both representatives and functionaries of other governments as well as with their citizens. That’s why we have both embassies and consulates. And it is every country’s right to interact in the democratic processes of others by making their positions known and by pointing out facts that support them. Democracy requires access to accurate and complete facts, regardless of their source. Without such information it can at best function dysfunctionally. While it is not appropriate for any government to engage in malum in se criminal activities, whether in their own countries or others, and generally, they ought not to violate reasonable malum prohibitum restrictions or diplomatic rules, all countries are duty bound to protect their citizens, an obligation that sometimes clashes with the foregoing. The concept of comity in a non-legal, pragmatic sense is something that we are too willing to ignore when it suits us, but if only relied on selectively, all of its value is lost.
Perhaps diplomacy has always been grounded on hypocrisy but deceiving oneself is even more dangerous and counterproductive than deceiving others; blatantly lying to ourselves, more detrimental than bold face lies to others. And that’s where we find ourselves today. No country in recent history has more frequently or more effectively interfered in other countries’ democratic processes than the United States. That is a fact and it’s paid off well, not necessarily for our citizenry but rather for the oligarchy that has always controlled our government, the oligarchy that enlightened progressives are purportedly dedicated to challenging. That oligarchy is dedicated and ruthless, deadly and efficient; it can be subtle as well as brutal and can even be both concurrently. It is not bound by the restraints imposed by truth and logic having become expert at emotional manipulation through incitement to fear and anger and those tools are used not only on behalf of the United States but against its citizenry as well. At least that’s what progressives claim to believe.
The current version of a now traditional anti-Russia hysteria, so obvious when McCarthyism was rejected by President Eisenhower despite his continuing CIA led antisocialist machinations including coups in Iran and Guatemala, is back in full force notwithstanding the absence of Communist bogeymen. From what I’ve seen, using a corruptly tame media and a psychotic Democratic Party, that oligarchy, which owns the United States intelligence community and both major political parties, is doing all it can to turn normal international intercourse by Russia into the appearance of illicit activities designed to overthrow our government as we’ve overthrown so many others. In fact, it is those protagonists who are viscerally trying to overturn the latest presidential elections via a purported soft coup. Not because the victor is inept and embarrassing, as he may well be, at least in part, but because he has threatened to veer away from the anti-Russian line essential for world domination, not by the United States, but by the oligarchs who rule us.
That is my perspective, based on my personal experience; based on the research which as an academic I’ve conducted over the past decades while teaching courses and participating in seminars, congresses, etc., on human rights, international law, comparative politics, constitutional theory, history of political ideas and World and American history; by my experiences travelling and living abroad as well as in various parts of the United States; and, based on what I’ve learned from others who I deeply respect and admire with different experiences and different perspectives during half a century of interactions as an adult. My world view has evolved drastically over the decades and I’ve associated with numerous political parties: the GOP, the Democrats, the Libertarians, the Greens, but none ever satisfied my political beliefs so I moved on long ago and am now an independent, but an independent dedicated to promoting real political pluralism and to the demise of both current major political parties which I consider equally maleficent abominations. I am dedicated to the resolution of conflict through non-violent means, whether in the family, in civic society or internationally, and to non-military interference in the affairs of other countries. I am dedicated to attainment of economic, social and cultural equity and to the minimization of corruption (its elimination appears a panacea). And I’m dedicated to the generation of innovative solutions to attain the foregoing and to adjust to the very different world into which we are emerging, a world where the nature of money as a means of economic distribution may well already be anachronistic.
Interesting that such perspectives would lead anyone to conclude that I’m a fascist, but then, all too many of us have no idea of the meaning of the concepts we throw around pejoratively and all too many of us could care less what those meanings are, as long as they’re hurtful. All too many of us tend to react against those that hurt us, albeit only psychologically (as though that were not something serious) by seeking to return the injury in kind without realizing that as we become more and more polarized, we become easier and easier to manipulate.
Perhaps that too is the Russian’s fault (satire, just to make that clear).
© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2017; all rights reserved