2024 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[Kirk Gallaway]

4 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

The Rising Democratic Threat of "Hopeful Militarism"

The Democratic Party's attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/08/the-rising-democratic-threat-of-hopeful-militarism.html

Peter Bloom

Aug 26, 2024 Common Dreams

In an already historic presidential campaign featuring the rising threat of Christian nationalism, assassination attempts, and the sudden switch of a presidential nominee, one of the most under-the-radar but worrying developments has been how the Democratic Party has increasingly sought to associate its militaristic policies with a campaign centered on "hope" and "joy." This strategic move, while politically savvy, raises profound questions about the nature of progress, the role of military power in shaping global politics, and the future of American democracy. As the United States grapples with the genuine threat of far-right extremism and the specter of Trumpism, it becomes crucial to critically examine the Democrats' approach to national security and foreign policy.

The Democratic Party's emphasis on hope and joy in their political messaging is not new. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, with its iconic "Hope" poster and message of change, set a precedent for this approach. In the face of growing authoritarianism and global instability, the Democrats have doubled down on this strategy, presenting themselves as the guardians of democracy and harbingers of a brighter future.

However, this narrative of hope and progress is increasingly intertwined with a commitment to maintaining and even expanding American military dominance. Nowhere was this more evident than in Vice President Kamala Harris' acceptance speech, where she seamlessly blended aspirational rhetoric about preserving democracy and promoting economic opportunity with a promise to ensure that the United States remains "the strong, most lethal fighting force in the world."

The Democratic Party's deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions.

This juxtaposition of hope and militarism creates a troubling paradox. On one hand, the Democrats present themselves as champions of peace, multilateralism, and global cooperation. On the other, they continue to advocate for policies that perpetuate a cycle of global conflict and divert resources from pressing domestic needs.

The Democratic Party's deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions. Despite rhetoric about creating an "opportunity economy" and investing in social programs, the reality is that trillions of dollars continue to flow into military spending. This massive allocation of resources not only prevents real investment in creating a more equitable and sustainable society but also fuels global conflicts and instability.

The growing marketplace for surveillance technology globally further complicates this picture. As the United States seeks to maintain its technological edge in military and intelligence capabilities, it simultaneously exports these technologies to allies and partners around the world. This proliferation of surveillance tools raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for authoritarian abuse.

The Dangerous Conflation of Militarism with Progress and Democracy

One of the most concerning aspects of the Democrats' approach is the attempt to link militarism with concepts of multilateralism and global cooperation. This rhetoric, championed by President Biden and his predecessors, suggests that a strong military is essential for maintaining international order and promoting democratic values abroad.

However, this conflation ignores the complex realities of global politics and the often counterproductive effects of military intervention, where even legitimate support for regimes can turn into a profitable opportunity for weapon’s makers. By framing military power as a tool for promoting democracy and human rights, the Democrats risk legitimizing interventions that may ultimately undermine these very values.

The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally. At home, the massive defense budget diverts resources from critical investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental protection. This misallocation of funds perpetuates economic inequality and hinders efforts to address pressing social issues. Globally, the United States' military-first approach to foreign policy has often led to unintended consequences. From the destabilization of entire regions to the creation of power vacuums that give rise to extremist groups, the track record of American military interventions is far from unambiguously positive.

The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally.

Perhaps most troubling is the way in which militarism is being normalized and even celebrated within ostensibly progressive political discourse. By linking military power to concepts of hope, progress, and global cooperation, the Democrats are fundamentally reshaping the way Americans think about the role of force in international relations. This normalization process makes it increasingly difficult to question or challenge militaristic policies. When criticism of military spending or interventions is framed as opposition to "hope" or "progress," it becomes easier to marginalize voices calling for a more peaceful and just foreign policy.

The US embrace of surveillance technology as a tool for local and national security raises serious questions about the compatibility of these practices with democratic values. While presented as necessary for protecting citizens from threats both foreign and domestic, the expansion of surveillance capabilities poses significant risks to civil liberties and privacy rights. Moreover, the export of surveillance technologies to other countries, including those with questionable human rights records, undermines the Democrats' claims to be champions of democracy and freedom. This contradiction between rhetoric and action further erodes trust in the political system and reinforces cynicism about the true motives behind foreign policy decisions.

The Rising Threat of “Hopeful” Militarism

The Democratic Party's approach to militarism presents a unique danger in American politics, one that diverges significantly from the overt hawkishness often associated with their Republican counterparts. While figures like Trump and the far-Right occasionally denounce "endless wars" - even as they continue to support the military-industrial complex - the Democrats have crafted a narrative that intertwines militarism with a vision of global progress and democratic idealism.

This rhetorical strategy embodies a distinct form of hypocrisy. By framing military interventions and the maintenance of global military supremacy as essential components of preserving and spreading democracy worldwide, the Democrats have effectively weaponized hope. They present militarism not as a necessary evil, but as an integral part of an optimistic, forward-looking vision for both domestic and international progress.

The risk lies in how this framing normalizes and even glorifies military action. When couched in the language of hope, democracy, and global cooperation, policies that perpetuate conflict and divert resources from crucial social needs become more palatable to a progressive audience. This rhetorical sleight of hand allows the Democrats to pursue interventionist policies while maintaining the moral high ground in the eyes of their supporters.

Furthermore, this "hopeful" militarism creates a false dichotomy: either support military action or abandon the cause of global democracy. By conflating military might with democratic values, the Democrats make it challenging to envision alternative approaches to international relations and conflict resolution. This narrative effectively silences critics, painting them as pessimists or isolationists who lack faith in American ideals.

The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions. When military interventions are framed as necessary steps towards a more peaceful and democratic world, it becomes easier to overlook the immediate human cost and long-term destabilizing effects of such interventions. The rhetoric of hope acts as a veil, concealing the harsh realities of war and occupation behind a facade of noble intentions.

The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions.

This approach also shores up support for the military-industrial complex among those who might otherwise be its critics. By aligning military spending with progressive values, the Democrats create a cognitive dissonance that allows their supporters to reconcile their desire for social progress with continued investment in weapons and warfare. This effectively broadens the base of support for militaristic policies, making substantive changes to America's foreign policy approach even more challenging.

The Democrats' "hopeful" justification of militarism represents a sophisticated form of propaganda. It coopts the language of progress and democracy to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex, all while presenting itself as a force for global good. This approach not only perpetuates harmful policies but also corrupts the very ideals it claims to uphold, turning concepts like hope, democracy, and progress into tools for justifying military dominance.

Recognizing and confronting this rhetorical strategy is crucial for anyone seeking to challenge the prevailing paradigm of American militarism. It requires a willingness to question even those narratives that align with our values and to critically examine the gap between hopeful rhetoric and the often harsh realities of military action. Only by disentangling our aspirations for a more just and democratic world from the machinery of war can we begin to forge a truly progressive approach to global affairs.

Reimagining Security and Reclaiming Hope

As we confront the challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to global inequality, it is crucial to reimagine our approach to security and progress. True hope for the future lies not in maintaining military dominance but in addressing the root causes of conflict and instability.

Investing in diplomacy, international development, and conflict resolution could yield far greater returns in terms of global security than continued military buildup. Similarly, redirecting resources towards education, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure could create genuine economic opportunities and improve the lives of millions of Americans.

Challenging the dominant narrative of militarism as progress will require concerted effort from civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and engaged citizens. By highlighting the true costs of militarism and presenting alternative visions for national security and global cooperation, these groups can help shift the public discourse.

The Democratic Party's attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power. While the threats posed by far-right extremism and global authoritarianism are real, the answer does not lie in perpetuating a cycle of militarism and conflict.

True hope for the future lies in reimagining our approach to national security, global cooperation, and economic progress. One where movements social movements around the world can unite to support one another in resisting and replacing economic and political oligarchs locally and globally. By challenging the normalization of militarism within progressive discourse and presenting alternative visions for a more peaceful and just world, we can reclaim the concept of hope from those who would use it to justify endless war and surveillance.

I will give an honest appraisal of this. First I wondered who wrote It. I was sure it was either 1)a person who lives outside the U.S., which it was, a Brit. Or 2) any academic  without any real understanding of U.S. politics. And so it appears. Peter Bloom, a Professor at the University of Essex in the UK

 

Then i read this introduction:

Yves here. It is sobering to see what the Democratic party propaganda machine is cooking up and will probably succeed in selling. The messaging boils down to “War is love”.

Oh for Chrissake!,  do people really keynote on an intertwining hidden meaning that will rouse the masses in a speech like this in the U.K.?

where she seamlessly blended aspirational rhetoric about preserving democracy and promoting economic opportunity with a promise to ensure that the United States remains “the strong, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

It's a political speech, and we have a lot of them in the U.S. Harris is perceived rightly as a California Liberal, whose  moving to the center to appeal to centrists and those who are concerned about Harris defending the U.S. role as a global superpower, just as JFK did. Just as all Democrats do. What that means to them is not the same as it means to me, and probably not Harris.

This strategic move, while politically savvy, raises profound questions about the nature of progress, the role of military power in shaping global politics, and the future of American democracy.

Pffff...More academic BS! The "hope and joy" was struck as a contrast to Trump's forever Doom and Gloom, it's not used as a pretext for further militarization!

******

Not that I don't understand the concerns stated. For example I can't with any conscience condone the funding of Israel genocide against the Palestinians. But as I've said before, I'm in the minority. The sort of sitting on the fence about this does represent currently the will of the American people. That equation is what currently is. And nothing in this speech will change that reality. She'll be a bit harder on Netanyahu than Biden, though we'll see how much.

But there are limits to U.S. public support that never existed before. It's harder to get boots on the ground in a foreign war than it ever has been in our lifetimes. Now the next stage is to learn hard lessons from proxy wars.

I think what the author doesn't understand is no foreign policy was made here in reality, or by dog whistle.

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

Kirk,

Paul Rigby's op-ed (above) zeroes in on my least favorite part of Kamala Harris's Democratic acceptance speech.

And it was published at Common Dreams-- a progressive U.S. news site that I admire and support financially.

Here's my take on that speech segment.

Harris was trying to look tough, "Presidential," and "patriotic," in the worst sense of the word.

But who is she, really?  That is the question.  She's not George W. Bush, Trump, or Biden.

I was very pleased when she lamented the suffering of the Palestinian people, after firmly pledging to support Israel's right to self-defense.

Biden, himself, has consistently avoided expressing any sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, or for those protesting their annihilation.  It's his worst failure as POTUS, IMO.

My own belief is that Harris will be less supportive of militant American imperialism than Biden.

Her family is from India and Jamaica, and she has a history of defending persecuted people.

 

 

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Yo, Matt, I think our Hibernian Euro-splainer is now trying to inform Norte Americanos that they live in El Norte.

I learned this important lesson in Saltillo when I was 15.

We should have listened to Amerigo Vespucci, or, better yet, to Caetano Veloso and Milton Nascimento.

Ah yes, I see. I'll have to FedEx some warm milk and a new blankie to all those triggered ASAP 

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

My own belief is that Harris will be less supportive of militant American imperialism than Biden.

Her family is from India and Jamaica, and she has a history of defending persecuted people.

I agree.. But putting it concretely the next existential hurdle outside of an outright war throughout the Middle East would be a breakdown of a ceasefire process and a U.S. withholding funds to Israel. We can say, should that breakdown happen, a move to defunding  would more likely happen under Harris, but she would be fiercely opposed by the Republicans who currently stand to win the Senate, but let's hope they don't.

Of course, keep in mind this is a Rigby segue from Chris Martenson's" Peak Prosperity" to Daniel Beto  David's insurance Ponzi scheme to now "Naked Capitalism".  He covers a lot of bases!.

Quite an algorithm there!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28 by Kirk Gallaway

[John Cotter]

8 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Ah yes, I see. I'll have to FedEx some warm milk and a new blankie to all those triggered ASAP 

The fact that you, Niederhut and your other fellow “Americans” were indoctrinated into the ideology of US genocidal imperialism in school probably explains your “snowflakey” inability to comprehend any objective critique of that ideology.

[W. Niederhut]

Geez...another bizarre John Cotter misdiagnosis.

John, obviously, hasn't read, or understood, our many commentaries on the Education Forum criticizing the CIA and the U.S. military industrial complex.

It's truly bizarre to observe the stubborn refusal of our European friends to broaden their intellectual horizons by also studying and discussing the history of the KGB/FSB and former KGB Lt. Col. Vladimir Putin.

They want multi-polarity, except when discussing modern history.

Instead, they always insist on focusing solely on the CIA and U.S. military-- even this week, when Putin has launched a major bombing campaign against Ukraine.

Imagine if KInaski, Rigby, and Cotter had grown up in the dreary, impoverished Soviet Bloc, or in a Europe sans Marshall Plan and NATO.

They would have a completely different attitude about so-called U.S. "full spectrum dominance."

Also imagine Kinaski, Rigby, and Cotter wanting to elect a corrupt boobie like Donald Trump to run their own countries!

[John Cotter]

And poor William again exemplifies the incomprehension referred to in my post.

Edited August 28 by John Cotter

[Paul Rigby]

Imagine you were born in, say, Guatemala, under the jackboot of Uncle Sam...

Now tally up the number of countries across the globe where these kind of horrors have been visited upon their populations by the benign Uncle Sam and its terrorists.

[W. Niederhut]

Has anyone ever seen Cotter or Rigby respond accurately and cogently to a forum post here?

Cotter tends to reflexively re-post the same mumbo jumbo about people allegedly failing to comprehend and rebut his brilliant gibberish, and Rigby is always in Russian-bot broadcast mode.

This morning, they either ignored my last post-- about the history of the CIA and the KGB-- or completely failed to understand it.

 

Edited August 28 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Rigby]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Has anyone ever seen Cotter or Rigby respond accurately and cogently to a forum post here?

Cotter tends to reflexively re-post the same mumbo jumbo about people allegedly failing to comprehend and rebut his brilliant gibberish, and Rigby is always in Russian-bot broadcast mode.

This morning, they either ignored my last post-- about the history of the CIA and the KGB-- or completely failed to understand it.

 

Oh dear. Still pushing the discredited nonsense of Catherine Belton?  In the immortal words of Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling, the legendary sub-aquatic raven-trainer, "Why bother?" Belton's farrago is as credible as its direct antecedents, classic works of British spook nonsense such as "I was Hitler's Maid" or the Casement Diaries (take your pick which ones, as they changed to suit the circumstances).

Who can possibly forget John Helmer's total demolition of Belton ? Did she even write the work attributed to her? Highly unlikely: https://johnhelmer.net/computer-analysis-reveals-catherine-beltons-book-has-another-author/

"I was Hitler's Maid," solemnly embraced by a number of acclaimed British historians - from memory, among them Oxford's A J P Taylor, the MI6 talent-spotter - was "developed by the British War Office as black propaganda and came out in London in 1940 ...in the US with the title ”The woman who lived in Hitler’s House”. The photo on the cover is a manipulated collage and the ”author” Pauline Kohler is a fictitious character, supposedly a pseudonym for Ronald Collier [again, from memory, a young Cambridge historian - PR].

The story centres around Pauline Kohler who claims she was forced to be a maid at the Berghof between 1936 and 1938, when she managed to escaped with the help of the Jewish underground in Bucharest. As propaganda it certainly does not disappoint, the maid is arrested by the Gestapo for expressing a negative comment about Hitler and sent to Buchenwald concentration camp, but not before some naked interrogation by the secret police of course. She is later released and begins work at the residence off a high ranking Gestapo officer who after some lurid sexual advances gets caught by his wife and offers the poor Pauline work at the Berghof as Hitler's maid. There she witnesses naked whippings, is shown the rape dungeons in the basement and assures us that every guestroom is stocked with pornography and a signed copy of Mein Kampf...Between 1940 and 1948 the story was published world-wide in at least seven different languages including Chinese. The Danish edition was published in 33 000ex and in Sweden it had at least a 10 edition run between 1944-45.

The book has been republished ever since, all be it sporadically. It was published in England in 1993 and America in 2011 and even translated into Malay (Adukkala: Hitlarude Bhruthyayude Athmakatha.) in 2011. All presented as authentic documents with no mention of the fact that it is British black propaganda from 1940, and historians still use Pauline Kohler as a legitimate source, for example the article: Hitler’s Sex Life By Jane Thynne (29 February 2016) have been published in both Historia Magazine and The Telegraph.

(Courtesy of F. Mencken.)

As for the Blinker-Hall superintended fabrications designed to discredit Casement:

The current re-opening of the controversy is due in large measure to the work of Angus Mitchell, a British scholar who was commissioned to edit Casement's writings for publication. (7) Mitchell found his intitial belief in the authenticity of the Black Diaries undermined by his detailed study of Casement's career and close comparison with the content of the White Diaries in the National Library of Ireland in Dublin. Mitchell considered the Black Diaries to be 'riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies', and questioned why Casement would keep in his possession incriminating material which could have been used by his many enemies in South America and subsequently in Britain. In particular, Mitchell points to the fact that in 1910 Casement was suffering from eye problems which caused him frequently to write entries in the White Diaries in pencil, whereas corresponding entries in the Black Diaries tended to be written more deliberately in pen. To illustrate this point, Mitchell provides photographs of White and Black entries for 12 October 1910. (8)

Consider also the following sample pair of 1910 entries, from the White and Black Diaries respectively:

Sunday 4th December. Out for a walk to the military firing ground with Ignacio Torres as my guide. Took several photos of the ground and trees and a stream beyond. Back at 11 - in great heat - and wrote a little in the afternoon altho' it was stifling. In the evening the Cazes' had a bridge party after dinner which lasted till midnight - and the heat lasted all night. It was really atrocious - not a breath of air and I lay for hours trying to sleep - and then got up and wrote, but the mosquitoes stop that game.

Sunday. 4th DEC. Very hot morning. Looking out window saw Ignacio waiting. Joy. Off with him to Tirotero and Camera. Bathed & photo'd & talked & back at 11. Gave 4/-. At 5.30 Cajamarca policeman till 7 at Bella Vista & again at 10.30 passeando & at 8 long talk. Shook hands and offered. Tall, Inca type & brown. Cards & Bridge & stupid party till near midnight. Saw Cajamarca several times from window. (9)

The first entry describes a day commencing with a combined walk and tour of inspection and concluding with an evening of socialising at a bridge party. The second entry portrays a round of sexual frolics with not one but apparently two males, concluding with a bridge party which seems 'stupid' in contrast. If the second diary entry is genuine, Casement possessed superhuman energy and a Jekyll and Hyde personality, combining official investigative work and reporting with voracious cruising day and night, and all the while finding time to write up two diaries! There are other puzzling discrepancies between between the two texts. For example, in a White Diary entry dated 30 November 1910 Casement wrote: 'Sent John Brown and S Lewis to Prefect at 10am and Gusmán, but again he could not see them'. The entry for the same date in the Black Diary gives an account which is at variance with this: '. . . sent for John Brown to go to Prefect and Lewis and Gusman. They all went as far as I know at 10am but have not seen one of them since. They are lazy swine.' (10)

While there are hints of relatively inoffensive homoeroticism in the White Diaries, the Casement of the Black Diaries is not an attractive figure, and his humanitarian work with oppressed natives seems secondary to what we would today call predatory sexual tourism. A reasonable case can therefore be made for the Black Diaries being written by someone other than Casement, using real people and events from the White Diaries or other genuine documents as the inspiration for the forgery.

http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/irhismys/casement.htm

 

[W. Niederhut]

Nice try, Rigby, but do let us know where Belton got any of her facts wrong in Putin's People.

Good luck with that.

The book is well documented.

I should mention that I have had some direct knowledge of FSB activity in the 21st century Putin era.

Your credibility on the subject is greatly undermined by your conspicuous silence about Putin's war crimes in Ukraine during the past 30 months.

Edited August 28 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

Trump Shares Crude Sexual Remark About Kamala Harris

August 28, 2024 at 5:39 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard

“Donald Trump used his social-media website on Wednesday to amplify a crude remark about Vice President Kamala Harris that suggested Ms. Harris traded sexual favors to help her political career,” the New York Times reports.

“The post, by another user on Truth Social, was an image of Ms. Harris and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s opponent in 2016. The text read: ‘Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently.'”

“Mr. Trump’s repost was the second time in 10 days that the former president shared content from his personal account making sexually oriented attacks on Ms. Harris.”

[W. Niederhut]

Well, we could probably all use a little comic relief this week.

I hope Lee Greenwood doesn't sue...  😂

 

[Cliff Varnell]

How the Opposition Won Guatemala’s ‘Free but Unfair’ Election

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/25/guatemala-presidential-election-results-arevalo-seed-movement-semilla-corruption-torres/

Inside the White House Effort to Prevent a Coup in Guatemala

Kamala Harris’s team helped deliver an overlooked foreign-policy win.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/28/guatemala-coup-kamala-harris-biden-administration-arevalo/

[Paul Rigby]