#me: hopes it would be related to the war in Ukraine or otherwise to Russian imlerialism and that some of you guys actually care

[iamthetruenhaz]

Copied my reblog to the tags because it was below the cut but I really have a problem with this.

[footage of the inside of an ordinary Eastern-European home, taken with a handheld phone camera, the man filming is walking from the living room to the back door of the house]

man, narrating in russian: Every fucking year, this time of the year, the pond at my backyard gets infested. What do ponds get infested with? Frogs? Poisonous weeds? Geese? No. Not my pond.

[The man opens the back door, stepping out into a garden. Three or four nude, human-like figures dash from the borders of a pond back into the water.]

man: Rusalki! I don't know where they come from or how they get here, and I can't afford to hire an exterminator every year. I can't let my cat outside anymore. Last year a rusalka managed to drown a whole deer in my pond, the stench was unbearable.

[He walks as he speaks, approaching the pond. There are several eerily beautiful female beings peering at him from under the surface, their long hair floating in the murky water. Their eyes are gleaming in an unhuman way. The man holding the camera stops to film them.]

man, calm and deadpan: What the fuck are all of you staring at. Get jobs or something.

[One of the rusalki, smaller than the others and clearly not a fully matured adult, slowly reaches out of the water with her white, thin hand, grasping his ankle. He appears unconcerned.]

man: You can't drown me, you little idiot. You're too small. Shoo!

[A loud thud startles the rusalki, making them scatter. A second thud makes it clear these are the approaching footsteps of something massive. The man turns around and points the camera at what appears to be a house, walking past above the treeline with chicken-like legs]

man, now yelling: IF YOUR HOUSE SHITS ON MY YARD AGAIN I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD-

[thunderboltfire]

In relation to the current political climate - nothing makes me as furious as random people on the internet playing philosopher and geopolitics expert, claiming that ‘we don’t know the truth bc everybody lies’ and playing the whataboutism game, sometimes even trying to justify the invasion, claiming that actually, Russia and Putin didn’t started it - that he was provoked. Usually, people making these comments are from the Western Europe or America, but that’s not a rule.

“But NATO wanted to put missiles on the very border of Russia!” Russia has nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad, on the very border of Poland and expected everyone to be alright with that, yet I remember that when Poland negotiated with USA to install the anti-missile system the main problem was whether or not we’ll anger Putin by allowing NATO country, with whom we’re allied with to install a defense system in our country. The majority of what is going on in sovereign states should be nobody else’s business - especially if we’re talking about things like alliances and equipment of the armed forces, not clear human rights violations etc. Ukraine is not Russian colony - it doesn’t matter that Putin states otherwise. Russia already borders with several NATO countries and repeatedly violates their airspace, captures their vessels on neutral waters, and the Russian fighter jets even made a low-pass, similar to a simulated attack on an American warship, which was caught on camera. And that was years before the invasion.

No one would feel the need to defend against Russia, if they didn’t keep everyone on their toes. On purpose. And that’s why Ukraine also wanted to join NATO - because Russia has made moves suggesting that they won’t stop at Donetsk and Lugansk, or that they’re going to tear their territory apart, piece by piece.

I’ve even seen people stating that Putin only wants Ukraine to de-nazify its military and government (claiming that the current government is neo-nazi or something).

Apart from the falseness of the statement - what do You think he’ll do then? Respectfully retreat and apologise for incursion? Maybe even pay the war reparations?

Are there horrible people with far-right sentiments in Ukraine? Of course. So they are in practically every country. It’s still a half-true (in case of the government even fully false) bullshit used as an excuse to invade a neighboring country, kill civilians, shoot the refugees and bomb the shelters. And in case I was in doubt whether the tales of Russian bombing the refugee columns are true, a young Ukrainian boy who’s come to the model kit workshop said that as they were running there was a plane dropping bombs all around, but their [Ukrainian] plane appeared and shot it down. So yeah. It’s happening. Huge thanks to the pilot who had enough reflex and skill to save them, I hope he’s still alive.The 6, maybe 8 year old children here can tell you things they definitely shouldn’t witness.

And it outrages me, to see people who’s never lived next to Russia saying that “Putin needs to protect his country’s interests, and NATO is encroaching on Russia”. He’s been doing whatever he pleases outside of his borders - Georgia, Crimea, now Ukraine - because he thought that people will be too scared to intervene. And he’s been lying and lying all this time and people either didn’t hear about it or don’t even care.

Putins’ propagandists are hard at work, recently on the Russian TV show their “experts” said, that my country’s politics is hateful and criminal, and if we’ll act “too brave” our capital will be gone in 30 seconds. They threaten us day-to-day now, people who don’t live near the Eastern Flank of NATO don’t understand that every engagement that we do on a government level sending help to Ukraine is not because of USA, or because of some false sense of moral superiority - it’s because we’re next. Putin does make it clear that he deems Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and other countries Russia’s zone of influence. His rhetorics is so abhorrent, that I can’t believe anyone who has any different source of information even believes him. Murderer of civilians and children paints his own war as some sort of moral crusade against the “rotten” west.

Our president recently responded to the threats implying that Putin shouldn’t make that much effort to threaten us, or he’ll shit his pants. It seems irrational or silly, but it’s already known by everyone here that Russia’s leaders don’t really care whether we try to appease them or not - they’ve already decided that we’re their enemy. They won’t stop on our Eastern border, for sure not indefinitely. They will try to move further to the west, unless they lose in Ukraine, for which I still hope.

Anyway, thanks for reading this. And for all the Russians suffering because of the sanctions - I feel for You. I know many of You are not in the position in which You just can risk being arrested for opposing the regime. But truth be told, this is probably the least lethal way to stop this madness and I won’t stop supporting the sanctions until Putin doesn’t have any more pocket money to play war criminal among his neighbors.

[english2121]

Discussion Leader 12/5

Karina

Quote #1: “So don’t expect stars in what’s coming: nothing will twinkle, this is opaque material and by its very nature despised by everyone. That’s because this story lacks a cantabile melody. Its rhythm is sometimes discordant. And it has facts. I suddenly fell for facts without literature--facts are hard stones and action is now more interesting to me than thinking, you can’t get away from facts” (Lispector pg. 8).

Question #1: Based on our previous discussion in class how is this quote representative of postmodern literature?

Quote #2: I do not intend for what I’m about to write to be complex, though I’ll have to use the words that sustain you. The story--I determine with false free will--will have around seven characters and I’m obviously one of the more important. I, Rodrigo S.M. An old tale, this, since I don’t want to be all modern and invent trendy words to make myself look original. So that’s why I’ll try contrary to my normal habits to write a story with a beginning, middle and “grand finale” followed by silence and falling rain” (pg. 5).

Question #2: In this quote the narrator, as a writer, shows consciousness of readers and seems to address them directly. In what tone does he seem to address the readers and their needs? Does this quote seem like a criticism of writing and books? If so in what way?

Quote #3: “Now I want to speak of the northeastern girl. This is what I mean: she like a stray dog was guided exclusively by herself.I too, from one failure to the next have reduced myself to myself by at least I want to encounter the world and it’s God. I’d like to add by the way of information about the young girl and myself, that we live exclusively in the present because it is always eternally today and tomorrow will be a today, eternity is a state of things at this very moment” (pg. 10).

Questions #3: Given our discussion of identity in the postmodern period how does the narrator touch upon this topic in this quote? How does he touch upon collective vs. individual relationship? What may he mean when he says “eternity is a state of things at this very moment”.

Quote #4: “I’m sure of one thing: this narrative will deal with something delicate: the creation of a whole person who surely is as alive as I am. Take care of her because all I can do is show her so you can recognize her on the street, walking lightly because of her quivering thinness. And what if my narrative is sad? Afterwards I’ll surely write something cheerful, though why cheerful? Because I too am a man of hosannas and someday, perhaps, I’ll sing praises instead of the difficulties of the northeastern girl” (pg. 11).

Question #4: What parallels do you think the narrator is trying to draw between himself and “the northeastern girl”? What if any do you think he might be hoping the readers draw between themselves and the character? For what purpose?

Quote #5: “Nothing in her was iridescent, though the parts of her skin between the blotches had a slight opal glow. Not that it mattered. Nobody looked at her on the street , she was like cold coffee. And that’s how time passed for the girl. She blew her nose on the hem of her underwear. She didn’t have that delicate thing called charm. I’m the only one who finds her charming. Only I, her author lover her. I suffer for her. And I’m the only one who can say this: ‘what do you ask of me weeping that I wouldn’t give you singing? That girl didn’t know she was what she was, just as a dog doesn’t know it’s a dog. So she didn’t feel unhappy. The only thing she wanted was to live. She didn’t know for what, she didn’t ask questions. Maybe she thought there was a little bitty glory in living. She thought people had to be happy. So she was. Before her birth was she an idea? Before her birth was she dead? And after her birth she would die?” (pg.19)

Question #5: How have the narrator’s sentiments towards his character changed in comparison to earlier in the book? Can the narrator’s conflicting sentiments towards his character shed light on the postmodern perspective? How so?

Argument:  The book The Hour of the Star contains many of the same questions and uncertainty that plague postmodernism. It is a book that contains more questions than answers. Through the perspective of the narrator we are made to question what writing is? What life is? Is it possible to truly separate the self from what is written? The narrator claims to love the character he is creating and yet at the same time he speaks of her with much disdain, criticizing and belittling her existence, one which he is creating. The complex relationship between narrator and character seem like an introspective examination of life and an active effort to reconcile the parts of oneself that one loves and hates in order to make sense of it all.

Crystal Williams

Quote #1: “If this story doesn’t exist now, it will. Thinking is an act. Feeling is a fact. Put the two together-I am the one writing what I am writing. God is the world. Truth is always an interior and inexplicable contact. My truest life is unrecognizable, extremely interior and there is not a single word that defines it” (Lispector, 1).

Question #1: What is the connection between the truest-self and God as alluded to by Lispector? How does this relate to the genre of Post Modernism? Consider (if you are aware of Winnicott’s concepts) the notion of the true self and the false self. How does that relate to the act of writing and thinking as described by Lispector?

Quote #2: “How do I know everything that’s about to come and that I myself still don’t know, since I have never lived it? Because on a street in Rio de Janeiro I glimpsed in the air the feeling of perdition on the face of a northeastern girl. Not to mention that I as a boy grew up in the northeast. I also know things about things because I am alive. Everyone alive knows, even if they don’t know they know. So you gentlemen know more than you think and are just pretending not to” (Lispector, 2).

Question #2: What does Lispector allude to the duality of humanity and inherent intelligence and knowledge? Are both men and women endowed with the same intelligence, or is there a common truth, or knowledge that transcends gender?

Quote #3:”Could it really be that the action is beyond the word? But when I write-let things be known by their real names. Each thing is a word and when there is no word it is invented. This is your God who commanded us to invent” (Lispector, 8)”

Question #3: Who or what is God as described by Lispector? What is her connection to God? Would you consider her writing, or writing in general to be a divine act?

Consider: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Quote #4: “The fact is I hold a destiny in my hands yet don’t feel powerful enough to invent freely: I follow a hidden, fatal line” (Lispector, 12).

Question#4: What is the fatal line that Lispector speaks on? How is it possible for her to feel powerless in a world that she created? Could this apply to us in our daily lives?

Quote #5: In her little superstitious imaginings, she thought that if by any chance she ever got a nice good taste of living- she’d suddenly cease to be the princess she was and be transformed into vermin. Because, no matter how bad her situation, she didn’t want to be deprived of herself, she wanted to be herself. She thought she’d incur serious punishment and even risk dying if she took out too much pleasure in life. So she protected herself from death by living less, consuming so little of her life that she’d never run out. This savings gave her a little security since you can’t fall farther than the ground” (Lispector, 24).

“Clarice Lispector was a great artist; she was also a middle-class wife and mother. If the portrait of the extraordinary artist is fascinating, so is the portrait of the ordinary housewife, whose life is the subject of her stories. As the artist matures, the housewife, too, grows older. When Lispector is a defiant adolescent filled with a sense of her own potential—artistic, intellectual, sexual—so are the girls in her stories. When, in her own life, marriage and motherhood take the place of precocious childhood, her characters grow up, too. When her marriage fails, when her children leave, these departures appear in her stories. When the author, once so gloriously beautiful, sees her body blemished by wrinkles and fat, her characters see the same decline in theirs; and when she confronts the final unravelling of age and sickness and death, they appear in her fiction as well” (The New Yorker, Web).

“Escaping the Jewish pogroms that were part of life in Ukraine and other parts of the Russian Empire in the late 19th–early 20th century, Lispector at age five immigrated with her parents and two older sisters to Brazil. There her mother died some four years later of syphilis, contracted from a group of Russian soldiers who had raped her” (Britannica, Web).

Question #5: With her life experiences in mind, do you feel that the northeastern girl described in the text is a facet of Lispector’s being? Why or why not? How would her experiences with the war, death and poverty shape her work and her views of the world?

Argument: Lispector argues that knowledge and experience are intricately linked to humanity and not gender. She as an author, transcends the trap of being pigeon-holed into a female narrative. Lispector is an unbiased omnipresent force who paints The Hour of The Star in trials, meaning she is writing, living and experiencing the story at the same time through different planes of existence. It is within these realms that Lispector explores the ideas of Winnicott and Freud, illuminating the theories of the true-self and false self, day-dreaming and the act of play.

Argument: Lispector in her writing uses the spark of The All (the ever creating entity, otherwise known as “God”) to conduct interrupted play that allows her to know who or what she is. Her form of play, seamless bouncing from introspective interpretations of both male and female further gives support to the notion of Lispector’s “God-self” in her writing. Writing is considered an act of creation, and this act gives her power and agency in the world of The Hour Of The Star.

[clubofinfo]

Expert: I’m back!! It has recently been reported that Senator John McCain has an aggressive brain tumor. Not long ago I would have thought: “Good. It’ll be great to be rid of that neanderthal reactionary bastard!” Not now. My kidneys are gone and I’m on (rather unpleasant) dialysis for the rest of my life. My separated-from German wife is in Germany and can’t fly because of the danger of blood clots forming and lodging in her lungs or heart. I’m an avid reader of medical news and almost every day I get choked-up and depressed by the never-ending heart-breaking stories of incurable pain and suffering of the old and the young. So I wish the senator a good recovery, if that’s possible. Probably no more possible than his politics recovering. He just condemned all the neo-Nazi actions in Charlottesville, this man who went out of his way to pose for friendly photos with neo-Nazis in Ukraine and jihadists in Syria. So far the dialysis does not seem to have helped, at least not with my two main symptoms: deep-seated sleepiness at home, resulting in repeated naps, making my writing difficult; and getting out-of-breath and having to stop and rest after a very short and slow walk outdoors. I’m curious about whether any of my readers knows of anyone with a medical problem that was clearly relieved by dialysis. It may be my advanced age of 84 that blocks any improvement. But, supposedly, the dialysis keeps me alive in the absence of functioning kidneys. Incidentally, nine of my readers and friends have offered me a kidney for transplant, but I can’t find a hospital willing to perform it; again it’s my age, though I’m very willing. At least I still have my eyesight and my hearing. My mind is okay. I have all my limbs and am not paralyzed. And I’m not in pain. Much to be thankful for. It’s also very nice to have gone past the hangups my condition thrust upon me and to be back writing my report for the first time in five months. During the recent American presidential campaign I wrote that if I were forced to vote and also forced to choose between Clinton and Trump I’d vote for the Donald. (As it turned out I voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.) I stated two reasons why I’d choose Trump over Clinton: presumably, a lesser chance of nuclear war with Russia and a lesser chance of the American government closing down the Russian TV station, Russia Today (RT), broadcasting in the US. There was at the time, and now again, growing Congressional pressure to do just that and I’m very reliant on the station. Because of such matters I was willing to overlook Trump’s many and obvious character defects, which I summed up with the endearing word of my people back in Brooklyn –- “shmuck”. But by now the man’s shmuckiness has been writ so large that little hope for him can be maintained. What is keeping Donald Trump from drowning in the very cesspool of his own shmuckiness is a gentleman named Kim Jong-un. Who would have believed that a single historical period could produce two such giant shmucks, men who tower over their pathetic contemporaries? There’s only one explanation for this remarkable phenomenon. Of course. It’s Russia. Moscow is using the two men to make America look foolish. And Russia, it may soon be revealed, gave North Korea its nuclear weapons. Did you think that such an impoverished, downtrodden society could produce such scientific marvels on its own? Is there any act too dastardly for Vladimir Putin? We don’t know yet whether Trump’s son, daughter or son-in-law made any deals with Kim Jong-un. Stay tuned to Fox News and CNN. Those stations, amongst others, put out a lot of fake news, but when it comes to news of North Korea nothing compares to the fake news of 1950. Did you know there’s no convincing evidence that North Korea did what they’re most famous for –- the June 25, 1950 invasion of South Korea, which led to the everlasting division of the Korean peninsula into two countries? And there were no United Nations forces that observed this invasion, as we’ve been taught. In any event, the two sides had been clashing across the dividing line for several years. What happened on that fateful day in June could thus be regarded as no more than the escalation of an ongoing civil war. Read my chapter on Korea in Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II for the full details of these and other myths. The response to terrorism I still get emails criticizing me for the stand I took against Islamic terrorists earlier this year. Almost every one feels obliged to remind me that the terrorists are acting in revenge for decades of US/Western bombing of Muslim populations and assorted other atrocities. And I then have to inform each one of them that they’ve chosen the wrong person for such a lecture. I, it happens, wrote the fucking book on the subject! In the first edition of my book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, published in 2001, before September 11, the first chapter was “Why do terrorists keep picking on The United States?” It includes a long list of hostile US military and political actions against the Islamic world during the previous 20 years. So I can well see why radical Muslims would harbor a deep-seated desire for revenge against The United States and its allies who often contributed to the hostile actions. My problem is that the Islamic terrorist actions are seldom aimed at those responsible for this awful history –- the executive and military branches of the Western nations, but are more and more targeted against innocent civilians, which at times includes other Muslims, probably even, on occasion, some who sympathize with the radical Islamic cause. These random terrorist acts are thus not defendable or understandable from any revenge point of view. What did the poor people of Barcelona have to do with Western imperialism? Civilians are, of course, much easier to target, but that’s clearly no excuse. As I’ve pointed out in the past, we should consider this: From the 1950s to the 1980s the United States carried out all kinds of very harmful policies against Latin America, including numerous bombings, without the natives ever resorting to the uncivilized, barbaric kind of retaliation as employed by ISIS. Latin American leftists generally took their revenge out upon concrete representatives of the American empire: diplomatic, military and corporate targets – not markets, theatres, nightclubs, hospitals, schools, restaurants or churches. The terrorists’ choice of targets is bad enough, but their methods are even worse. Who could have imagined 20 years ago that an organization would exist in this world that would widely publicize detailed instructions on how to choose a truck to drive down a busy thoroughfare and directly into crowds of people? What species of human being is this? What is needed is a worldwide media campaign to make fun of the very idea that such men, along with suicide bombers, will be rewarded by Allah in an afterlife; even the idea of an afterlife can, of course, be derided; yes, even the idea of Allah, by that or any other name, can be derided; at least the idea of such a cruel God. Appealing to jihadists on simply moral grounds would be even more useless than appealing to Pentagon officials or Donald Trump on moral grounds. The jihadists have to be deeply ridiculed; the small amount of human empathy and decency still remaining in their heart of hearts has to be reached through embarrassing them before their friends and family. Femmes fatales can be used against young Islamic men, most of whom, I’d venture to say, have sizable sexual hangups. Bombing them only increases their numbers. Some thoughts on the question that will not go away:  Capitalism vs. socialism The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power. –– Aneurin Bevan (1897-1960), Labour Party (UK) minister The fact that Donald J. Trump is a champion –- indeed, a model, or as he might say, a huge model –- of capitalism should be enough to make people turn away from the system, but the debate between capitalism and socialism continues without pause in the Trump era as it has since the 19th century. The wealth gap, affordable housing, free education, public transportation, a sustainable environment, and health care are some of the perennial points of argument we’re all familiar with. So many empty houses … so many homeless people –- Is this the way a market economy is supposed to work? Twice in recent times the federal government in Washington has undertaken major studies of many thousands of federal jobs to determine whether they could be done more efficiently by private contractors. On one occasion the federal employees won more than 80% of the time; on the other occasion 91%. Both studies took place under the George W. Bush administration, which was hoping for different results. The American people have to be reminded of what they once knew but seem to have forgotten: that they don’t want BIG government, or SMALL government; they don’t want MORE government, or LESS government; they want government ON THEIR SIDE. As to corporations, we have to ask: Do the members of a family relate to each other on the basis of self-interest and greed? Speaking in very broad terms … slavery gave way to feudalism … feudalism gave way to capitalism … capitalism is not a timelessly valid institution but was created to satisfy certain needs of the time … capitalism has outlived its usefulness and must now give way to socialism … the ultimate incompatibility between capitalist profit motive and human environmental survival demands nothing less. The system corrupts every important aspect of our lives, including the one which takes up the most of our time -– our work, even for corporation executives, who demand huge salaries and benefits to justify their working at jobs that otherwise are not particularly satisfying. Several years ago, the Financial Times of London reported on Wall Street’s opposition to salary limits: Senior bankers were quick to warn the plans would cause a brain drain from the profession as top executives seek more rewarding jobs out of the public eye. Unlike other careers where job satisfaction and other considerations play a part, finance tends to attract people whose main motivation is money. … ‘The cap is a lousy idea,’ complained one top Wall Street executive. ‘If there is no monetary upside, who would want to do these jobs?’ As for those below the executive class … When they work, it’s too often just any job they can find, rather than one designed to realize innermost spiritual or artistic needs. Their innermost needs are rent, food, clothes, and electricity. For those concerned about the extent of freedom under socialism the jury is still out because the United States and other capitalist powers have subverted, destabilized, invaded, and/or overthrown every halfway serious attempt at socialism in the world. Not one socialist-oriented government, from Cuba and Vietnam in the 1960s, to Nicaragua and Chile in the 1970s, to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, to Haiti and Venezuela in the 2000s has been allowed to rise or fall based on its own merits or lack of same, or allowed to relax its guard against the ever-threatening imperialists. The demise of the Soviet Union (even with all its shortcomings) has turned out to be the greatest setback to the fight against the capitalist behemoth, and we have not yet recovered. How could the current distribution of property and wealth reasonably be expected to emerge from any sort of truly democratic process? And if this is the way regulated capitalism works, what would life under unregulated capitalism be like? We’ve long known the answer to that question. Theodore Roosevelt (president of the United States 1901-09) said in a speech in 1912: “The limitation of governmental powers, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations who can only be held in check through the extension of governmental power.” And what do the corporate elite want? In a word: “everything” … from our schools to our social security, from our health care to outer space, from our media to our sports. “We are all ready to be savage in some cause. The difference between a good man and a bad one is the choice of the cause.” – William James (1842-1910) A few years ago, when George W. Bush came out as a painter, he said that he had told his art teacher that “there’s a Rembrandt trapped inside this body”. Ah, so Georgie is more than just a painter. He’s an artiste. And we all know that artistes are very special people. They’re never to be confused with mass murderers, war criminals, merciless torturers or inveterate liars. Neither are they ever to be accused of dullness of wit or incoherence of thought or speech. Artistes are not the only special people. Devout people are also special: Josef Stalin studied for the priesthood. Osama bin Laden prayed five times a day. And animal lovers: Herman Goering, while his Luftwaffe rained death upon Europe, kept a sign in his office that read: “He who tortures animals wounds the feelings of the German people.” Adolf Hitler was also an animal lover and had long periods of being a vegetarian and anti-smoking. Charles Manson was a staunch anti-vivisectionist. And cultured people: This fact Elie Wiesel called the greatest discovery of the war: that Adolf Eichmann was cultured, read deeply, played the violin. Mussolini also played the violin. Some Nazi concentration camp commanders listened to Mozart to drown out the cries of the inmates. Former Bosnian Serb politician Radovan Karadzic, convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, was a psychiatrist, specializing in depression; a practitioner of alternative medicine; published a book of poetry and books for children. Members of ISIS and Al Qaeda and other suicide bombers are genuinely and sincerely convinced that they are doing the right thing, for which they will be honored and rewarded in an afterlife. That doesn’t make them less evil; in fact, it makes them more terrifying, since they force us to face the scary reality of a world in which sincerity and morality do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. Dick Gregory, 1932-2017 Mayor Daley and other government officials during the riots of the ’60s showed their preference for property over humanity by ordering the police to shoot all looters to kill. They never said shoot murderers to kill or shoot dope pushers to kill. When the white Christian missionaries went to Africa, the white folks had the bibles and the natives had the land. When the missionaries pulled out, they had the land and the natives had the bibles. The way Americans seem to think today, about the only way to end hunger in America would be for Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird to go on national TV and say we are falling behind the Russians in feeding folks. What we’re doing in Vietnam is using the black man to kill the yellow man so the white man can keep the land he took from the red man. http://clubof.info/

[bartroberts]

New Post has been published on Black Barth News

New Post has been published on http://blackbarth.com/double-standards-liberal-protestors-obamas-wars/

Double Standards: Where Were the Liberal Protestors During Obama’s Wars?

The election of Donald Trump has sent millions of people pouring out onto the streets to protest a man they think is a racist, misogynist, xenophobic bully who will destroy US democracy in his quest to establish himself as supreme fascist ruler of the country.

Maybe they’re right. Maybe Trump is a fascist who will destroy America. But where were these people when Obama was bombing wedding parties in Kandahar, or training jihadist militants to fight in Syria, or abetting NATO’s destructive onslaught on Libya, or plunging Ukraine into fratricidal warfare, or collecting the phone records of innocent Americans, or deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers, or force-feeding prisoners at Gitmo, or providing bombs and aircraft to the Saudis to continue their genocidal war against Yemen?

Where were they?

They were asleep, weren’t they? Because liberals always sleep when their man is in office, particularly if their man is a smooth-talking cosmopolitan snake-charmer like Obama who croons about personal freedom and democracy while unleashing the most unspeakable violence on civilians across the Middle East and Central Asia.

The United States has been at war for eight straight years under Obama, and during that time, there hasn’t been one sizable antiwar march, demonstration or protest. Nothing. No one seems to care when an articulate bi-racial mandarin kills mostly people of color, but when a brash and outspoken real estate magnate takes over the reigns of power, then ‘watch out’ because here come the protestors, all three million of them!

Can we agree that there is at least the appearance of hypocrisy here?

Indeed. Analyst Jon Reynolds summed it up perfectly over at the Black Agenda Report. He said:

“If Hillary had won, the drone strikes would have continued. The wars would have continued. The spying would continue. Whistleblowers would continue being prosecuted and hunted down. And minorities would continue bearing the brunt of these policies, both in the US and across the world. The difference is that in such a scenario, Democrats, if the last eight years are any indication, would remain silent — as they did under Obama — offering bare minimum concern and vilifying anyone attacking their beloved president as some sort of hater. Cities across the US would remain free of protests, and for another 4-8 years, Democrats would continue doing absolutely nothing to end the same horrifying policies now promoted by a Republican.” (“Delusions Shattered“, Jon Reynolds, The Black Agenda Report)

He’s right, isn’t he? How many of the 800,000 protesters who marched on Sunday would have flown to Washington to express their contempt for would-be President Hillary Clinton?

Zero, I’d wager, and yet it’s Hillary who wanted to implement the no-fly zones in Syria that would have put Washington in direct confrontation with Moscow, just like it was Hillary who wanted to teach Putin a-thing-or-two in Ukraine. But is that what the people want? Would people prefer to be led into World War 3 by a bonefide champion of liberal values than concede the post to a brassy billionaire who wants to find common ground on fighting ISIS with his Russian counterpart?

It seems like a no-brainer to me. And it’s not like we don’t know who is responsible for the killing in Syria either. We do.

Barack Obama and his coterie of bloodthirsty friends in the political establishment are entirely responsible. These are the people who funded, armed and trained the Salafist maniacs that have decimated the country and created millions of refugees that are now tearing apart the EU. That’s right, the spillover from America’s not-so-covert operation is ripping the EU to shreds. It’s just another unfortunate side-effect of Obama’s bloody Syrian debacle. As journalist Margaret Kimberly says in a recent post at The Black Agenda Report: “All of the casualties, the sieges, the hunger and the frantic search for refuge can be placed at America’s feet.”

Amen, to that. All the violence can be traced back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, home of Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel peace prize winner. What a joke. Here’s how analyst Solomon Comissiong sums it up in another article at the BAR:

“Supporters of Barack Obama, and liberals in general, are disingenuous frauds. They had no issues protesting the likes of the amoral warmongering George W. Bush or the racist xenophobe, Donald J. Trump, however when it comes to Barack Obama they can find no reason to protest his mass murdering escapades. Obama supporters were recently nostalgic and teary eyed after he gave his last major speech as president of the United States, yet can find little reason to shed tears over the masses of civilians who were destroyed directly as a result of Obama’s policies. Where were the emotions and tears when men, women and children were getting blown to bits by USA drone attacks, indiscriminate air strikes and bombs?…Those who protested the racist and xenophobic Trump, but not Obama or Clinton, are nothing more that disingenuous frauds and amoral cowards.” (“As Obama Exits the White House, Never Forget His Destructive Imperialist Legacy“, Solomon Comissiong, Black Agenda Report)

Let’s be honest, Obama got a pass from his supporters strictly because of appearances; because he looked and sounded like a thoroughly reasonable bloke who only acted on the loftiest of principles. Obama was hailed as a moral giant, a political rock star, a leader among leaders. But it was all fake, all make-up and glitz behind which operated the vicious national security state extending its tentacles around the world, toppling regimes wherever it went, and leaving anarchy and destruction in its wake. Isn’t this Obama’s real legacy when you strip away the sweeping hand gestures and pompous rhetoric?

Of course it is. But Trump won’t have that advantage, will he? Trump is not a public relations invention upon which heartsick liberals pin their highest hopes. Trump is Trump warts and all, the proverbial bull in the china shop. That’s not to say Trump won’t be a lousy president. Judging by the Wall Street cutthroats and hard-edged military men he’s surrounded himself with, he probably will be. But the American people are no longer asleep, so there’s going to be limits to what he can hope to achieve.

So the question is: How should one approach the Trump presidency? Should we denounce him as a fascist before he ever sets foot in the Oval Office? Should we deny his “legitimacy” even though he was elected via a process we have honored for over 200 years? Should we launch impeachment proceedings before he’s done anything that would warrant his removal from office?

Veteran journalist Robert Parry answers this question in a recent piece at Consortium News. Here’s what he said:

“The current danger for Democrats and progressives is that – by bashing everything that Trump says and does – they will further alienate the white working-class voters who became his base and will push away anti-war activists.

There is a risk that the Left will trade places with the Right on the question of war and peace, with Democrats and progressives associating themselves with Hillary Clinton’s support for “endless war” in the Middle East, the political machinations of the CIA, and a New Cold War with Russia, essentially moving into an alliance with the Military (and Intelligence) Industrial Complex.

Many populists already view the national Democrats as elitists disdainful of the working class, promoters of harmful “free trade” deals, and internationalists represented by the billionaires at the glitzy annual confab in Davos, Switzerland.

If — in a rush to demonize and impeach President Trump — Democrats and progressives solidify support for wars of choice in the Middle East, a New Cold War with Russia and a Davos-style elitism, they could further alienate many people who might otherwise be their allies.

In other words, selectivity in opposing and criticizing Trump – where he rightly deserves it – rather than opportunism in rejecting everything that Trump says might make more sense. A movement built entirely on destroying Trump could drop Democrats and progressives into some politically destructive traps.” (“Selectivity in Trashing Trump“, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

Right on, Bob. A very reasonable approach to a very thorny situation.

Bravo!

Source