J’raxis·Com
J’raxis·Com
J’raxis’ thoughts on the 2004 presidential elections (jackass vs. dumbass) and the coming storm…
The Bush administration is planning to purge the CIA of “disloyal” officials, according to the Baltimore Sun. Knut Royce writes that:
[A] former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House [says,] “Goss was given instructions … to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president’s agenda.”
So in other words, anyone in the CIA who doesn’t kowtow to the ideology put forth by George W. Bush and his coterie of neoconservatives is labelled a “liberal Democrat” and fired. Any intelligence-gathering official who actually tries to do his job instead of playing mere cheerleader to the administration gets fired for his troubles.
Entities like the CIA are, ultimately, realists. The purpose of an intelligence agency is to collect actual facts and provide them to the government so it knows how to set policy and doesn’t get caught with its pants down. When no one is around to tell an ambitious and power-hungry government that their plans are short-sighted, poorly thought out, or just plain unworkable, such a government has a nasty habit of steamrolling forward until disaster finally strikes.
Here’s the kind of ideology driving the neoconservatives, as reported by Chris Floyd of the Moscow Times:
“That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality,” [a Bush aide explained.] “And while you’re studying that reality, we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Wow.
When reality finally decides to pay these guys a visit, it’s not going to be pretty. And reality always has a nasty way of poking itself through ideological blinders no matter how strong they are. The only question is how messy and disastrous such a confrontation will be.
The neoconservatives took over the Pentagon long ago, sidelining and marginalizing generals with decades of experience in fighting actual wars and dealing with actual facts on the ground. That’s why America is in the mess that it’s already in. And now they’re going to turn the CIA into just another organ of the government that tells them what they want to hear.
Well, I can’t say I oppose this move—the United States burying its head in the sands of delusion like this is a surefire way to move it closer and closer to collapse. Onward!
People are finally starting to get it! Michael C. Ruppert writes that other nations throughout the world are beginning to oppose the American empire project through economic warfare: an ever-increasing number of nations are considering, or already are, switching from the US Dollar to the Euro:
All around the globe we see newly forming economic and political alliances. In South America and elsewhere new regional common markets are evolving rapidly. The Euro is rising to new significance as a world currency and a way to pull the rug from under the Empire. From Russia, to Iran, to China, to Venezuela, to Saudi Arabia the world is drifting inexorably to a decision to price oil in Euros.
Mr. Ruppert suggests that American opponents of US imperialism finally admit to themselves that the electoral game is rigged, ordinary protests are pointless, and, barring some sort of uprising or civil war (Mr. Ruppert seems to have developed a sudden appreciation for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, something other liberals should take to heart), it’s high time for them to start hitting the American State where it hurts: the US economy. Get out of debt to American corporate banks. Stop doing business with them. And stop being a damned consumer.
“But how would world markets abandoning the Dollar put an end to US ambitions?” one may ask. The answer is this: The entirety of international trade, and the oil market in particular, basically boils down to something quite simple—the world economy functions on Dollars, and has since the end of World War II. Actual physical Dollars are traded around the world, bought and sold, horded by nations’ central banks, and so on—the scheme works essentially the same way that gold and silver were formerly used as a medium of exchange, except now instead of precious metals, the world trades in American paper.
Demand for Dollars by these central banks translates to credit extended to the United States, which translates to the United States being able to spend, spend, spend, thereby exerting its power over the world. A drop in demand results in less credit available, and an eventual abandonment of the Dollar will make the United States about as powerful as Micronesia (no offense to Micronesia intended).
But don’t take my word for it. Alex Wallenwein, a professional economist and gold trader, explains in detail exactly how nations abandoning the Dollar for the Euro (or perhaps even an actual gold-backed currency such as the up-and-coming Iranian Dinar) would affect the United States:
Once even a small number of OPEC member countries begin to shun the Dollar and transact their business in Euro, the already existing process toward the “Euro-isation” of the world monetary system will become an unstoppable avalanche that could bury the United States under mountains of its own currency—just like a hapless ski vacationer under a cascading wall of snow and ice.
And that means hyper-inflation of a magnitude even post-WWI Germany has not seen.
Hmm. That wouldn’t be too good for the nascient empire, now would it?
[Footnote: Iraq began pricing their oil in Euros shortly before the US started drawing up invasion plans. Coincidences like this almost make one think that there may have been more to the invasion than phantom WMDs and “liberating Iraqis.”]
British newspaper The Independentwrites:
Asked at an EU summit about Mr. Bush’s re-election, [French President Jacques] Chirac said: “It is evident that Europe, now more than ever, must strengthen its unity and dynamism when faced with this great world power. More than ever, we must reinforce Europe politically and economically,” M. Chirac added, as he repeated his calls for a “multi-polar” world.
Do you hear that, America? That’s diplomatic language for “We’re not going to stand idly by while you try to conquer the whole world.”
The Europeans are also fast-tracking their plans for assembling an EU military force independent of NATO. This isn’t news, of course (except perhaps to the Americans who get their “news” entirely from corporate propaganda outlets like Fox and CNN)—the EU has been working on an independent military since the US decided to play cowboy and unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq.
I’m no fan of Winston Churchill, but I can’t help but think that what I’m seeing here is the very beginning of another nation preparing to stand up to the United States like Churchill did to Germany in 1939. Regardless of how Americans view the actions of their country’s government, the rest of the world recognizes it for what it is—naked aggression that bears a striking resemblance to something Europe remembers all too well from their past—and will eventually do something about it.
Hitler annexed Austria; the US invaded Afghanistan. Hitler forced Europe to concede annexation of the Sudetenland to him; the US forced resolutions through the UN allowing it to invade Iraq. Then Hitler invaded Poland, prompting England to act.
Who’ll be the United States’ Poland?
It’s starting to look like the election was, indeed, most likely stolen by George Bush. More and more stories are starting to roll in about how the Bush team went about doing it—electronic voting machines manufactured by Republican-connected corporations such as Diebold being the most prominent reason, but also optical scanners and hackable central tabulation machines in Florida, and “spoiled ballots” being discarded, uncounted. Okay—so the bastards stole the election.
As if it would make a difference.
My original observations about the similarity of these two clowns, Bush and Kerry, still stand—a vote for Bush is a vote for more warmongering imperialism with a “To hell with what the rest of the world thinks!” attitude, and a vote for Kerry is a vote for more warmongering imperialism with an internationalist (and perhaps even “humanitarian,” as Bill Clinton was good at pulling off) face painted on it.
The fact that Kerry conceded so quickly, in an even more spineless manner than Al Gore did in 2000, just lends credence to the suspicion that it’s all a game anyway—a sideshow put on by the ruling class to distract Americans from what’s really going on. Every four years, Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum come out and do their ritual dance and people get to argue about manufactured crises like Social Security, Medicare, terrorism, or whatever. And every time, we end up with more wars and more government, often even with even more power vested in it.
Of course, with the Republicans defeating the Democrats in 2000 and routing them in 2002 and again in 2004, it does indeed seem that they are intent on genuinely destroying the Democrats—so, one may reasonably ask, why would they go about doing this if they are just the right-wing half of the “real” ruling class?
My answer to that question would be this: Nearly half, perhaps more than half by now, of Americans are on board with the Republican ideology. What with all the Christian Reconstructionists and other related fundamentalists throwing their support behind the Republicans, and with liberalism slowly being confined to the northeast and west coast of America, perhaps the ruling class has simply decided that it’s no longer necessary to maintain the psuedo-leftist, welfare-statist arm of their little sideshow anymore.
Enjoy the show while it lasts.
George W. Bush has won the election, and so far, it looks like he won it fair and square. There have been sporadic reports of the typical shenanigans we’ve come to expect from the Republicans over the past four years—voter intimidation, sacks full of ballots being carted off by partisans, and the infamous electronic voting machines resulting in all kinds of anomalous votes for Bush. But, for the most part, it looks like Bush has won himself another four years quite soundly: 51% to John Kerry’s 48%, 286 electoral votes to Kerry’s meager 252.
So what does this all mean?
It means that Bush has a popular mandate this time. It means that Americans support George Bush. It means that Americans agree with Bush’s belligerent, imperialistic foreign policy, that they support Bush’s wars and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq (and probably Syria, Iran, and Lebanon next), and it means that Americans think Bush is doing a good job in his contrived “war on terrorism,” and they want more of it.
It means that over the next four years we can expect to see “Bush unleashed,” so to speak. No longer constrained by the shadow of a potentially illegitimate presidency, no longer worried about “managing perceptions” for the next election, Bush and his coterie of neoconservatives can now get away with just about anything they want. More belligerence, more invasions, and more death and destruction for the greater glory of the American empire—that’s what it means.
And most importantly, it means that Americans are 100% responsible for their government’s actions this time around. They voted it into office, they gave it a popular mandate, they supported and continue to support it, and when the consequences come back to haunt them, they deserve it.
Over the past four years I’ve heard no end of excuses for America’s behavior from the anti-war movement, the left, and other opposition groups: we didn’t really elect Bush, he stole the election, Bush doesn’t really represent the will of America, Americans are just scared and lashing out blindly at perceived threats, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Bullshit.
It’s time to face it: America did elect Bush. Hell, the Germans elected the Nazis during the 1930s—it happened there, it can happen here too. I don’t claim to know where this is going, and where we’ll be in four years’ time, but I do know one thing for sure: next time “terrorists,” or perhaps even another state if one becomes so emboldened, strike at the United States, there’ll be very little sympathy from me.
Why do I actually support the reëlection of George W. Bush in 2004? This comment, which I posted to the Abu Aardvark weblog on 2004-10-30, sums it up pretty well—
“I want him to ruin the US by applying his stupid policies.”[Ahmed Abdel-Halim, explaining why he is among the mere 12% of Egyptians that prefer Bush to Kerry.]
This is pretty much why I support Bush (not as if I would actually vote for him—I see no point in participating in the election charade, but I at least mildly hope he wins). Bush is the best damned thing to happen to America, for those opposed to American power and its hegemony over the world—in four short years, he has utterly destroyed the alliances with Europe, alliances built and maintained since WWII, that America relied on in order to force its will upon the world. He has made the whole world hate the US and recognize it for what it is, he has trashed NATO, he has caused the EU to fast track plans to establish its own military, he has distracted himself with Iraq while Iran and North Korea build nuclear weapons, and he has virtually bankrupt the American state with his insane spending policies.
Kerry would resurrect the systems and apparatus that allow America to get away with its imperialism. Kerry is as much of a warmonger as Bush, as much as any American president; he’s just a better salesman, a better liar—if Kerry were to win, we can expect just as much death and destruction as Bush, but cleverly hidden under the guise of internationalism or “humanitarian interventions” like it was under Clinton (let’s not forget that Clinton had the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Somalia, the bombing of Afghanistan, the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, and worst of all he presided over the Iraq blockade that is estimated to have killed over a million people).
Bush, on the other hand, has set America on a collision course with history, and when he’s finished destroying the whole thing in order to “save” it, perhaps the world will emerge as a better place.
[P.S.: I’m not Egyptian, or even Arab; I happen to be American—an American who recognized long ago what a miserable system we have here and who has been long awaiting it to collapse. With our previous leaders I thought it would never happen. With Bush …I’m not so sure.]
So there you have it. I want him to ruin the US by applying his stupid policies. Here’s hoping, in four years’ time…