This was on TV from when I was a toddler to teenager in my mom loved politics so it was on. Really interesting to hear more information on what actually happened.
Excellent summation of the mentally diseased culture that runs the enterprise known as democracy building or rules based order or humanitarian intervention or right to protect (aka Murder,Inc.) . Reminds me of a passage in a book by Chomsky and Robinson
"Needless to say, because even oppressive, criminal, and genocidal governments cloak their atrocities in the language of virtue, none of this rhetoric should be taken seriously. There is no reason to expect Americans to be uniquely immune to self- delusion. If those who commit evil and those who do good always both profess to be doing good, national stories are worthless as tests of truth. Sensible people pay scant attention to declarations of noble intent by leaders, because they are a universal. What matters is the historical record.
The received wisdom is that the United States is committed to promoting democracy and human rights (sometimes called “Wilsonian idealism” or “American exceptionalism”). But the facts are consistent with the following theory instead: The United States is very much like other powerful states. It pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic population. In practice, this means that the United States has typically acted with almost complete disregard for moral principle and the rule of law, except insofar as complying with principle and law serves the interests of American elites. There is little evidence of authentic humanitarian concern among leading statesmen, and when it does exist, it is acted upon only to the extent that doing so does not go against domestic elites’ interests. American foreign policy is almost never made in accordance with the stated ideals, and in fact is far more consistent with what Adam Smith called “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind” in “every age of the world,” namely: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people.”
We might also call this the Mafia Doctrine. Its logic is straightforward and completely rational. The Godfather’s word is law. Those who defy the Godfather will be punished. The Godfather may be generous from time to time, but he does not tolerate disagreement. If some small storekeeper fails to pay protection money, the Godfather sends his goons, not just to collect the money, which he wouldn’t even notice, but to beat him to a pulp so that others do not get the idea that disobedience is permissible. But Godfathers, too, are known to convince themselves that they are kindly and benevolent.
The term “national interest” is itself a euphemism, for what is usually meant is the interest of a small sector of wealthy domestic elites. The American working class, whose members die in the country’s wars, do not have their “interest” served in any way by the wars that kill them. Nor are their interests served by the government spending money on weapons that could be used to repair school buildings. Indeed, when American actions abroad are exposed to the judgment of public opinion, they often prove deeply unpopular with the “nation” whose “interests” they are supposedly serving. A sophisticated propaganda system must keep the public in the dark, for if the truth were known, it would become immediately apparent that the public has a very different view of its “interests” than U.S. elites have.
We should also remember this the next time we hear talk about what “the Russians” or “Iran” have done. Totalitarians wish us to think that a country speaks with one voice, that it has a “national interest.” While it is the convention to refer to actions by the state as if they were actions by the country as a whole, and is unavoidable in discussions of policy, the formulation is ultimately misleading. The thousands of heroic antiwar protesters thrown in prison by Vladimir Putin have just as much claim to represent Russia as their ruler does. This is why it is an error to treat this book as arguing that “the United States is terroristic and destructive,” if the “United States” is understood to refer to some kind of collectivity of all Americans. Many in the United States have taken to the streets, and risked their lives and livelihoods, to oppose the acts of their government— when they have been permitted to learn about them, that is."
HOLY SHIT! That's a mic drop moment. This is such a good comment, the "interested" party, doesn't actually care about democracy, like the Godfather doesn't need the money, wouldn't notice it gone, but you can't defy the Godfather or the US. The elites' interests are much different than the people's interests, but this is hidden behind many levels of rhetoric and sloganeering and darkness so deep we wouldn't dare go looking for the bottom but if we ever found it would be clear that our interests are not the same. Like Herman and Chomsky's famous "Propaganda Model". If anyone reading this doesn't know about it, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent", it maps out how the media and the state have the same or similar interests therefore debate, although appearing to be open and honest are only permitted between set parameters and if your beliefs start to stray further than those parameters you get replaced, which has exceedingly made more sense in the last 2 decades. Just think about the factors around these high-level removals from corporate media, they were, most of the time one of, or the highest rated, host on the network, it doesn't make sense to us because our interests are different than the corporate elites, once their interests start to align with the people at homes, causing their ratings to skyrocket, they get replaced, Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, Glenn Beck, Phil Donahue, Cenk Uyghur, I know there's more but my brain just went dead. Oh yea, I just googled it, Amy Robach, Brian Stelter (I mean didn't everyone think he was the perfect CNN stooge) Dick Morris, Megyn Kelly, Kate Dalley, Chris Cuomo, Jane Akre, Marc Lamont Hill, Eric Burns, Melissa Francis, TJ Holmes, Allison Morris, and then there is actual journalism which has crumbled more careers then any of them, since it's much easier for journalists who go out and get stories to stray from elitist opinion then those who sit in a studio waiting on the story to come to them. Like Abby Martin, Chris Hedges (who just received a Pulitzer), Seymour Hersh, Matt Taibbi, Greenwald, Briahna Joy Gray, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, there is just SO DAMN MANY! Hersh explains it in his memoir that good Investigative Journalists aren't meant to keep the same job too long, it means they're not knocking on the right doors.
Best explanation of this is when Andrew Marr says to Noam Chomsky, "how do you know I'm self-censoring?"
Noam says, "I don't think you're self-censoring, I'm sure you believe everything you say. I'm also sure if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you are."
This was on TV from when I was a toddler to teenager in my mom loved politics so it was on. Really interesting to hear more information on what actually happened.
Oh wow, that's amazing. Thank you for reading it!
Excellent summation of the mentally diseased culture that runs the enterprise known as democracy building or rules based order or humanitarian intervention or right to protect (aka Murder,Inc.) . Reminds me of a passage in a book by Chomsky and Robinson
"Needless to say, because even oppressive, criminal, and genocidal governments cloak their atrocities in the language of virtue, none of this rhetoric should be taken seriously. There is no reason to expect Americans to be uniquely immune to self- delusion. If those who commit evil and those who do good always both profess to be doing good, national stories are worthless as tests of truth. Sensible people pay scant attention to declarations of noble intent by leaders, because they are a universal. What matters is the historical record.
The received wisdom is that the United States is committed to promoting democracy and human rights (sometimes called “Wilsonian idealism” or “American exceptionalism”). But the facts are consistent with the following theory instead: The United States is very much like other powerful states. It pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic population. In practice, this means that the United States has typically acted with almost complete disregard for moral principle and the rule of law, except insofar as complying with principle and law serves the interests of American elites. There is little evidence of authentic humanitarian concern among leading statesmen, and when it does exist, it is acted upon only to the extent that doing so does not go against domestic elites’ interests. American foreign policy is almost never made in accordance with the stated ideals, and in fact is far more consistent with what Adam Smith called “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind” in “every age of the world,” namely: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people.”
We might also call this the Mafia Doctrine. Its logic is straightforward and completely rational. The Godfather’s word is law. Those who defy the Godfather will be punished. The Godfather may be generous from time to time, but he does not tolerate disagreement. If some small storekeeper fails to pay protection money, the Godfather sends his goons, not just to collect the money, which he wouldn’t even notice, but to beat him to a pulp so that others do not get the idea that disobedience is permissible. But Godfathers, too, are known to convince themselves that they are kindly and benevolent.
The term “national interest” is itself a euphemism, for what is usually meant is the interest of a small sector of wealthy domestic elites. The American working class, whose members die in the country’s wars, do not have their “interest” served in any way by the wars that kill them. Nor are their interests served by the government spending money on weapons that could be used to repair school buildings. Indeed, when American actions abroad are exposed to the judgment of public opinion, they often prove deeply unpopular with the “nation” whose “interests” they are supposedly serving. A sophisticated propaganda system must keep the public in the dark, for if the truth were known, it would become immediately apparent that the public has a very different view of its “interests” than U.S. elites have.
We should also remember this the next time we hear talk about what “the Russians” or “Iran” have done. Totalitarians wish us to think that a country speaks with one voice, that it has a “national interest.” While it is the convention to refer to actions by the state as if they were actions by the country as a whole, and is unavoidable in discussions of policy, the formulation is ultimately misleading. The thousands of heroic antiwar protesters thrown in prison by Vladimir Putin have just as much claim to represent Russia as their ruler does. This is why it is an error to treat this book as arguing that “the United States is terroristic and destructive,” if the “United States” is understood to refer to some kind of collectivity of all Americans. Many in the United States have taken to the streets, and risked their lives and livelihoods, to oppose the acts of their government— when they have been permitted to learn about them, that is."
HOLY SHIT! That's a mic drop moment. This is such a good comment, the "interested" party, doesn't actually care about democracy, like the Godfather doesn't need the money, wouldn't notice it gone, but you can't defy the Godfather or the US. The elites' interests are much different than the people's interests, but this is hidden behind many levels of rhetoric and sloganeering and darkness so deep we wouldn't dare go looking for the bottom but if we ever found it would be clear that our interests are not the same. Like Herman and Chomsky's famous "Propaganda Model". If anyone reading this doesn't know about it, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent", it maps out how the media and the state have the same or similar interests therefore debate, although appearing to be open and honest are only permitted between set parameters and if your beliefs start to stray further than those parameters you get replaced, which has exceedingly made more sense in the last 2 decades. Just think about the factors around these high-level removals from corporate media, they were, most of the time one of, or the highest rated, host on the network, it doesn't make sense to us because our interests are different than the corporate elites, once their interests start to align with the people at homes, causing their ratings to skyrocket, they get replaced, Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, Glenn Beck, Phil Donahue, Cenk Uyghur, I know there's more but my brain just went dead. Oh yea, I just googled it, Amy Robach, Brian Stelter (I mean didn't everyone think he was the perfect CNN stooge) Dick Morris, Megyn Kelly, Kate Dalley, Chris Cuomo, Jane Akre, Marc Lamont Hill, Eric Burns, Melissa Francis, TJ Holmes, Allison Morris, and then there is actual journalism which has crumbled more careers then any of them, since it's much easier for journalists who go out and get stories to stray from elitist opinion then those who sit in a studio waiting on the story to come to them. Like Abby Martin, Chris Hedges (who just received a Pulitzer), Seymour Hersh, Matt Taibbi, Greenwald, Briahna Joy Gray, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, there is just SO DAMN MANY! Hersh explains it in his memoir that good Investigative Journalists aren't meant to keep the same job too long, it means they're not knocking on the right doors.
Best explanation of this is when Andrew Marr says to Noam Chomsky, "how do you know I'm self-censoring?"
Noam says, "I don't think you're self-censoring, I'm sure you believe everything you say. I'm also sure if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you are."
(Meaning at a corporate media network.)