This is a very distressing video. Watch at your own risk (from here).
I’m not sure exactly when or how I began to doubt. But I remember what happened the first time I expressed that doubt. It was a few months after the ’67 war. A special visitor came to our Sunday school class. He was in his early 20s, with thick fair hair falling over his forehead, a snappy sports jacket and polished loafers. Some of the girls whispered that he was cute. He had an accent but it was nothing like our grandparents’ accents. He looked and dressed like us but he had been a soldier in a war and that made him an alien being. Smiling, he perched himself casually on the front of the teacher’s desk and told us about the remarkable achievements of the Israeli army. He told us that the Arabs had planned a sneak attack but had met with more than they bargained for. They were bad fighters, undisciplined soldiers. And they were better off now, under Israeli rule. “You have to understand these are ignorant people. They go to the toilet in the street.”
Now something akin to this I had heard before. I had heard it from the white southerners I’d been taught to look down upon. I had heard it from people my parents and my teachers described as prejudiced and bigoted. So I raised my hand and when called upon I expressed my opinion, as I’d been taught to do. It seemed to me that what our visitor had said was, well, racist.
I felt the eyes of the teacher and the other kids turn on me. They were used to me spouting radical opinions but this time I had gone too far. Angrily, the teacher told me I didn’t have any idea what I was saying and that there would be no discourtesy to guests in his classroom. The young Israeli ranted bitterly about Arab propaganda and how the Israelis treated the Arabs better than any of the Arab rulers did.
Today, as cracks show in the presumed monolith of Jewish backing for Israel, increasing numbers of Jews are interrogating and rejecting Zionism. Nonetheless, the existence of anti-Zionist Jews strikes many people – Jews and non-Jews – as an anomaly, a perversity, a violation of the first clause in the ethical aphorism of Hillel, the first-century rabbi and doyenne of Jewish teachings: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”
Zionism is an ideology and a political movement. As such it is open to rational dispute. Jews, like others, might view the Jewish claim to Palestine as irrational, anachronistic, and intrinsically unjust. They might consider the Jewish state to be discriminatory or racist or might object – on political, philosophical, or even specifically Jewish grounds – to any state based on the supremacy of a particular religious or ethnic group. As Jews, they might reject the idea that Jewish people constitute a “nation”, or at least a “nation” of the type that can or should become a territorial nation-state. Or they might have concluded on the basis of an examination of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians that the underlying cause of the conflict was the ideology of the Israeli state.
Any or all of the above should be sufficient to explain why some Jews would become anti-Zionists. But that doesn’t stop critics from placing us firmly in the realm of the irredeemably neurotic. Whenever Jews speak out against Israel, their motives, their representativeness, their authenticity as Jews are questioned. We are pathologised. For only a psychological aberration, a neurotic malaise, could account for our defection from Israel’s cause, which is presumed to be our own cause.
Anti-Zionist Jews are not and do not claim to be any more authentic or representative than any other Jews, nor is their protest against Israel any more valid than a non-Jew’s. But “If I am not for myself”, then the Zionists will claim to be for me, will usurp my voice and my Jewishness. Since each Israeli atrocity is justified by the exigencies of Jewish survival, each calls forth a particular witness from anti-Zionist Jews, whose very existence contradicts the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere.
A brief insight into the ontogeny of a Jew who happens to be anti-Zionist. Please read in full.
While only controlled demolitions are known to have exhibited the observed nature of the towers’ falls, other experts, of differing backgrounds, find other fatal flaws in the official conspiracy theory. Dr. Hans Koechler has recently called the ‘official conspiracy’ theory a “dogma of political correctness”, characterizing the ‘official theory’ as one in which “19 Islamic-inspired Arab hijackers, directed by an elusive “Al-Qaeda” (“base”), succeeded in carrying out the atrocities all by themselves.” But, of course, being superstition, it doesn’t matter to Bush’s ever dwindling base that none of the ‘hijackers’ were accomplished Cessna pilots. Miraculously, they flew airliners with impossible precision. The official conspiracy theory is a fairy tale told to gullible goppers to make them feel better about being greedy, self-absorbed goppers for whom America is superior to an inferior world. The official theory relieves them of all responsibility for GOP policies which have over a period of at least 30 years made terrorism worse. If the ‘official conspiracy theory’ had been designed to dull critical thinking abilities, it succeeded.
I don’t believe any of the official conspiracy theory; not a fucking word of what Bushco and the 9th-of-November commission have to say on the subject. Never have, never will. And I can’t believe that anyone else still believes the official story, the same way I can’t believe that 18% of Americans still approve of that imbecile-in-chief.
In fact anything those monsters assert as truth I would necessarily assume to be diametrically opposed to the neighbourhood of the truth. Because they are worse than liars. They are a gang of murderous criminals, and warmongering genocide artists.
An indication of what to expect from the next president of the good ol’ US of A.
Here’s an idea; let’s ignore the only candidate who actually communicates ideas that might benefit AmeriKKKa, and select instead the candidates that are the very embodiment of everything that’s wrong with AmeriKKKa. Business as usual baby!
A couple of questions;
- Why do Americans hate so much?
- Why are they incapable of caring for the poor, the sick, and the homeless?
- Why do they, as a people, enjoy murdering the defenseless?
- Why do they take pleasure in harassing the powerless?
- Why are they all overwhelmed with the bloodlust?
- Why are they all either economists, or sociopaths, or pornographers to a man, woman and child?
- Why are they given to bullying?
- Why are they all inhuman monsters?
I know your average joe is quite rough around the edges, but America is an insanely hilarious aggregation of imbecilic protoplasm. Now if only I could find the off switch…
So I wonder how Mr. 911 is doing in Florida tonight;
Rudy Giuliani’s hopes of becoming the next US president effectively ended tonight after exit polls showed him coming well behind rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney in the all-important Florida primary.
Good job he didn’t invest a lot of money and energy there;
No less anxious was the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was likely to face calls to withdraw altogether if he placed poorly in the state into which he has poured almost all his energy and money in the hope of using it as a springboard for his presidential quest.
So that’s it then. The rather rotund diva has begun her musical performance. Your campaign is finally over. It’s time to take off the make-up and put that wig back in the cupboard. I’ll miss the drag, but not the nineeleventerrorists911septembertheeleventh. Bye-bye Rudolph, and thanks for all the fun memories. But it’s not all bad, of course, because now you get to concentrate on your first love (i.e. musical theatre).
Bonsoir Rudolph, bonsoir!
The Bush legacy will not be peace in the Middle East nor an end to conflict in Iraq, but it could be a political earthquake among voters so dismayed by the mess he has made of America’s foreign policy and fearful of economic recession that they are deserting his party in droves.
Here is a transcript.
FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, D-N.C.: Thank you. Thank you.
The one thing that’s clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.
And now we move on. We move on from Iowa to New Hampshire and to the other states to determine who’s best suited to bring about the change that this country so desperately needed.
Because what we’ve seen here in Iowa is we’ve seen two candidates who thought their money would make them inevitable. But what the Iowa caucus-goers have shown, is if you’re willing to have a little backbone, to have a little courage, to speak for the middle class, to speak for those who have no voice.
If you’re willing — if you’re willing to stand up to corporate greed, that message and the American people are unstoppable. No matter how much money is spent, no matter how much…
And we are so proud of this cause. But I want all of us to remember tonight while we’re having all these political celebrations, that just a few weeks ago in America, Nataline Sarkisian (ph), a 17- year-old girl who had a — needed a liver transplant, and whose insurance company decided they wouldn’t pay for her liver transplant operation.
EDWARDS: Finally, her nurses spoke up on her behalf. Her doctors spoke up on her behalf. Ultimately, the American people spoke up on her behalf by marching and picketing in front of her health insurance carrier.
And, finally, the insurance carrier caved in and agreed to pay for her operation. And when they notified the family just a few hours later, she died. She lost her life. Why? Why?
James Lowe was born 51 years ago in the United States of America with a severe cleft palate, which kept him from being able to speak. And he lived for 50 years in the greatest, most prosperous nation on the planet, not able to speak because he didn’t have health-care coverage and couldn’t pay for a simple operation. Why?
Doug Bishop, who’s actually behind me tonight, Doug and his family worked at the Maytag plant in Newton — Newton, Iowa. For generations, for generations, they worked. They sacrificed. They did everything you’re supposed to do in America.
And then recently, this plant closed. And the jobs went overseas. Why? The reason is because corporate greed has got a stranglehold on America. And unless and until we have a president in the proud tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, who has a little backbone, who has some strength, who has some fight, who’s willing to stand up to these people, nothing will change.
We will never have the America that all of us dream of. The promise of America, which has been available to so many of us, will not be available to our children and our grandchildren. And I take this very personally.
I watched my grandmother, who I loved dearly, work year after year after year in the mills. And we lived in the same neighborhood. She would cook for us, leave the house, walk her way to the mill, work her shift, and come back home and take care of us again.
My grandfather, who was partially paralyzed, would go to work the graveyard shift in that mill and come back in the morning, when we’d have breakfast together.
EDWARDS: My father, who’s here with me tonight, worked 36 years in the mills — hard, tedious work; hard, tedious work.
Why did he do it? Why did he struggle and sacrifice? Why did your parents and grandparents struggle and sacrifice? They did it so that you could have a better life.
My parents did it so that I could have a better life.
And we, all of us to whom the torch has been passed, we carry an enormous responsibility. And that responsibility transcends politics and transcends elections.
It’s our responsibility to ensure that we leave America better than we found it; that we give our children a better life than we’ve had.
And this is what I see in America today. I see an America where last year, the CEO of one of the largest health insurance companies in America made hundreds of millions of dollars — in one year.
I see an America where ExxonMobil’s profits were $40 billion just a couple of years ago. Record amounts — record profits.
All of that happening at the same time that this picture of America emerges. Tonight, 47 million Americans will go to bed knowing that if their child gets sick, they’ll have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care.
Tomorrow morning, women will go to their doctor and be diagnosed with breast cancer, just like Elizabeth was. But unlike Elizabeth, they’ll have no health care coverage. And as a result, they know that they can’t go to the emergency room and get chemotherapy.
What are they supposed to do? What are they supposed to do?
You can literally see the fear and terror in their eyes.
Tomorrow morning, 37 million of our own people will wake up literally worried about feeding and clothing their own children.
I went to a shelter here in Des Moines just a few weeks ago, where they took single moms with their children who had no place to live.
EDWARDS: And I said: Do you ever have to turn people away? Yes, a few months ago, they had to turn 70 to 75 families away in one month. And I said: These are moms with kids — yes — some of them with three or four children.
And I said: Well, where did they go when you sent them away? They went back to the street, back to their homes. Thirty-five million people in America went hungry last year in the richest nation on the planet.
And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We’re better than this. The United States of America’s better than this.
And what happened tonight is the Iowa caucus-goers said, we want something different. We are going to stand up, we are going to rise up, we’re going to create an America that all of us believe in.
Because the truth is, when we speak up, when we speak up for James Lowe and the millions like him who live in the darkness, when we speak up against corporate greed and for the 37 million Americans who live in poverty, when we speak up for single moms who have no place to live with their children, when we speak up for hundreds of thousands of veterans who served this country proudly and are homeless with no place to live at night, when we do that together, as a nation — and Iowa caucus-goers did it tonight — when we do it, America’s a better place.
It says something about who we are. It says something about our character. Because when we do, America rises up. America becomes what it’s capable of being. And what began — and it is not over — what began tonight in the heartland of America is the Iowa caucus- goers said: Enough is enough.
We are better than this. We are going to bring the change that this country needs.
EDWARDS: And you have created and started a wave of change, a tidal wave of change that will travel from here to New Hampshire to Nevada to South Carolina, all across this country.
Because we know the torch has been passed to us. We stand proudly on the shoulders of our parents and grandparents and all those generations who came before us. And we take our responsibility seriously.
And this tidal wave of change that began tonight in Iowa and that will sweep across America, when that wave is finished, when it is done, every one of us are going to be able to look our children in the eye and say, we did what our parents did for us and what our grandparents did for us. Which is: We left America better than we found it, and we gave our children a better life than we had.
That’s what this is about. That’s what this change is about.
Continue on. This march of change continues on. God bless you. Thank you for everything you’ve done. Stay with us in this fight. We are in this fight together. Thank you.
Do yourself a favor America.
So now the process can be fully diagrammed, and the cast of characters is stunning. The torture system involves the operations division of the CIA on the implementation side. They rely heavily on contractors, it seems, in torturing people. And a special role is apparently played by a couple of psychologists. (Time used to be that healthcare professionals had an oath. It started “first, do no harm.” But, just like the Bible and the Constitution, that’s so pre-9/11. And with the American Psychological Association providing full cover, what’s the worry.)
We know that the Justice Department is right in the thick of it. Who precisely? The answer is most likely the Office of Legal Counsel—which has now emerged as what George Orwell called the “Ministry of Love” (remember: in Nineteen Eighty-Four that’s the ministry that picked and approved torture practices). But it doesn’t end with the opinion lawyers. The National Security Division is also in the thick of things, apparently. Alberto Gonzales, before he became attorney general, played station master for the initial series of torture memos. Once he landed at Justice, he kept a close watch on all torture issues and lied to Congress about it. With the attorney general’s office staking out a close interest in torture, it’s unlikely that others in the Department would have substituted their judgment for his. Thus the ball would seem to be squarely in Michael Mukasey’s court.
And finally the White House. David Addington, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley—these are all name we can now link directly to the torture system. Not just as a matter of theory. As a matter of practical application. They decided who would be tortured and how. And John B. Bellinger III, the man who keeps making a laughing-stock of himself with speeches on international law (as, for instance, when he tells us he can’t raise a legal objection to the idea of the Iranians waterboarding some captured American airman), who was legal counsel at NSC and continues now to hold that role with Condi Rice at State. He constantly issued assurances “off the record” to human rights groups and bar groups that we certainly don’t torture. And now it’s reasonably clear that he was right in the thick of the torture approval process all along.
There seems to be some question as to whether or not America tortures. I can think of a few ways to get to the bottom of the matter; Cheney, Rice, etc. for 18 months at a black site, which I understand is an intense hotel-resort-spa (at least according to Rush Limbaugh), and I’m sure we’d get to the bottom of the matter.
Ron Paul doesn’t support impeachment. Dennis Kucinich sponsored legislation for impeachment.
Ron Paul doesn’t support 911 Truth and even worse implies that the government’s version of 911 is true. Dennis Kucinich supports investigating 911.
Dennis Kucinich supports not-for-profit healthcare. Paul supports free market healthcare based on the ability to pay.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate all federal taxation. Dennis Kucinich wants to shift the tax burden to wealthy persons and corporations.
Ron Paul supports the neoliberal free market agenda of free trade, deregulation of business, and privatization of public assets. Dennis Kucinich supports fair trade.
Ron Paul falsely claims that lower taxes benefit all of us but this is false because different types of taxes affect different portions of the population. If you lower a regressive tax like the payroll tax then it benefits the poor and middle classes but not the wealthy. If you lower a progressive tax like a tax on corporate profits, capital gains tax, or federal estate tax then this benefits wealthy individuals and corporations but not the poor and middle classes. Paul also falsely states that lower taxes create jobs which is that trickle down economics crap that Ronald Reagan promoted which proved to be false. Paul also states that lower taxes allow us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives which is only true if he’s talking about regressive taxes that affect the poor and middle classes. Paul also falsely implies that all we have to do is cut spending and we”ll avoid economic disaster.
Ron Paul also wants to deport every single undocumented immigrant. Paul shamelessly exploits 911 for his anti-immigrant agenda when he says a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas when he knows full well there were no 911 terrorists and that the attack was really a controlled demolition. Kucinich wants to grant permanent legal residence to immigrants living in the US for 5 or more years and conditional legal status and work authorization to all law abiding immigrants living in the US for less than 5 years.
Ron Paul opposes the International Criminal Court where he justifies it by saying the ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals and that they are a threat to our independence as a nation. Well I say if our soldiers commit war crimes then they should be prosecuted as war criminals. The ICC is no threat to our independence as a nation. The only reason for anyone to oppose the ICC is to prevent international criminals from being brought to justice. Paul falsely claims that the jihadists are our direct enemies. Paul also falsely claims that our reason for going to war was a UN resolution. The UN had nothing to do with why our country went to war. Oil is the reason why our country went to war but Paul doesn’t mention this and instead blames the UN to support his anti-UN agenda.
Paul is also an anti-abortion fanatic. Paul wants to redefine life as beginning at conception. I guess he wants to throw any woman who has an abortion in jail. Paul also wants to overturn Roe vs Wade. Paul claims federal court tyranny has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. His statement is an oxymoron. You can’t die if you’ve never been born. Paul is trying to impose his religious beliefs on those who don’t share them. Kucinich used to be against a woman’s right to have an abortion but his views on the issue changed several years ago and now he’s a strong defender of a woman’s right to choose.
Kucinich discusses 88 different issues on his website. Paul only discusses 10 topics on his website.
Jeez, you think you know someone…
Now there’s a rare commodity; a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 presidential election who is intelligent, eloquent, insightful, not a “null set”…
Well, the question is, kind of, a non sequitur, if you will. What I mean by that — or a null set — that is that if you’re saying let’s turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.
not a warmonger, not a sociopath;
If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina
But of course he’ll be overlooked in favor of one of the other maniacs, in order to quench the blood-lust of a society in decline. In my wildest dreams I never thought I’d be rooting for a Republican underdog.
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
Holy phuqueing shit!
Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it : Joseph Goebbels / Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda
If you are an American, and a Republican, you probably should vote for Ron Paul. See how much better it would be to have a human (as opposed to a primate) as president for a change.
p.s. your current president is a primate!
I lost a little respect for Galloway after the BB debacle (“would you like me… to be… the cat?“), but it’s been steadily returning. See Galloway give neocon scum warmonger Perle a reasonably good verbal kicking.
This guy gives Republicans a good name. Hell, he gives Americans a good name.
If you’re a Republican that is. He seems refreshingly informed and thoughtful for a Republican candidate. I, on the other hand, would suggest the revolution option for America. Either that or shock therapy…
One of the comments from the above article;
There’s plenty of Anti-Americanism in America too, particularly south of the Rio Grande, where the historic memory isn’t exactly one of Uncle Sam riding down to get rid of those pesky tyrants and spread the good lord’s words about ‘democracy’… but rather setting up such tyrants in the first place, along with military training schools to teach their soldiers and henchmen about the right place on people’s bodies to connect electrodes, or how long a man’s head can be held under water without killing him, or the joys of gang raping, and how whole populations can be terrorised into due submissiveness and subservience. A neocon’s dream, so to speak.
However, if we really wish to understand the inherent violence and reactionary culture of the United States, we need look no further than Europe itself, for it was from these lands than most of its powerful elite originally descended, and it would seem to have been the most perverse and backward part of European mentality that crossed the Atlantic and fostered what has since become the most vicious, egocentric and sexually perverted society the planet has ever witnessed. This is not to say that all US citizens are ‘evil doers’ – but certainly the dominant trend is not a healthy one, and serves more than anything to underline that old maxim about the corruption of power.
Indeed it does.
Earlier today I happened upon (through the agency of my good friend Dave) the two articles above. I just couldn’t believe what I was reading. The author asserts that anti-Americanism is an index of something else completely. In his opinion it is most usually a front for self-loathing, or failure, as if the righteous indignation of the enslaved, or colonised, peoples was merely an expression of the enslaved, or colonised, people’s failures.
You’ve got to wonder if there is any end to the capacity of the rest of the world to blame the United States for its problems.
Why wonder? If the cap fits…
Nowhere is that more the case than in Latin America, where out of roughly 500 million people, 200 million live on less than $2 a day. Why? Is it all the fault of the imperialists from the north? Or is just a little of it the result of local attitudes to poverty, local attitudes to honesty in government, and local attitudes to the rule of law?
In answer to the question I would say the imperialists from the north. We have seen numerous examples of their attempts at bringing democracy to resource-rich countries (that is to say countries rich in resources that the imperialists from the north covet), of the puppet governments that they have supported, or put in place, after a coup d’état orchestrated by themselves, of their lack of respect for democratically elected governments, of their lack of interests in the human rights records of the governments they support and have put in place, to know that they are, of course, a malign influence in the world.
As Otto Reich, a former Bush administration ambassador to Venezuela and public enemy number one (or two?) among many anti-Americans, told us: “The United States is the scapegoat. It provides an easy excuse for the failures: if something isn’t working, blame the Americans. Scratch the surface of some of these anti-Americans and you find self-loathing.”
So it’s the poor ol’ US of A, and not the victims of the East Timor Massacre, not the victims of the Chilean Coup, not all the countless other peoples who have suffered at the hands of this vile nation, who we should sympathise with.
A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion – or to magnify those indiscretions – while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched.
Tiniest Indiscretions? Like that time America left the toilet seat up, or when it chewed gum in the presence of the Queen, or when it stole the loaf of bread to feed it’s children… Who are you kidding! America doesn’t commit tiny indiscretions. Is Iraq a tiny indiscretion? Is extraordinary rendition a tiny indiscretion?
For Mr Chavez and his backers, Latin anti-Americanism is rooted in what the US has done – not in French-style metaphysical hoity-toityness. Latin Americans say – with some justification – that their neighbour to the north has behaved badly in the past.
And that’s putting it mildly. Organising coups, assassinating democratically elected heads of state, training and arming death squads, schooling despots in the art repression and torture, the list is endless. If anyone has a right to be suspicious of these imperialists, Latin Americans do.
Yes Washington has been concerned first and foremost with US self interest, but much of South America’s infrastructure – its social services such as they are – is in place because the Yankees put it there.
All the better to export their forcefully-secured booty…
Trade between north and south is huge: Venezuela alone sells $39bn worth of oil a year to the United States. And millions and millions of Latin Americans benefit every day from the powerhouse US economy – from relatives cleaning cars in Los Angeles, making beds in Las Vegas and picking fruit in rural Georgia. They send money home to places where economic development is stymied by corruption and government interference.
Once again, that most disgusting of tendencies, the reprehensible view that these people should be grateful that they have a job cleaning our toilets, or disposing of our rubbish, or even debasing themselves in our sex industries for the sake of our perverse pleasures. The imperialist project successfully creates the conditions for exploitation at home and abroad. Be proud America.
Which leads me to wonder: if American behaviour changes now, or if free trade turns out to make everyone wealthier, will Latin Americans change their minds about the modern US?
But is that not the strategy of all forms of modern Capitalism? Keep the slaves in sufficient luxury so they become indolent, content with what little they have, so that they become more interested in American Idol, or some such excrementious bile, and cease to question their conditions. Wouldn’t anyone, mistreated for a lifetime, should their conditions change for the better, take some time out to rest?
I felt quite ill just reading these articles. They are wonderful examples of disingenuous journalism, and that they were published on the bbc’s website is most disappointing, but no longer surprising. The bbc once again a voice in defence of an empire.