Return to: Home | World Affairs | North America

105 comments from readers

pete999
11 December 2008 at 12:03

Any evidence that Obama actually did steal the 'Yes we can' from anti immigration protestors?

Or another crude attempt at smearing the man before hes even sat down in the White House?

Where does that statistic for '27000' ghost prisoners come from?

Why do you not mention that Obama made the vast majority of his money from small donations made by ordinary people?

Normally you know what to expect from a Pilger article, America bad, jihadis/terrorists/suicide bombers/Chavez/Castro good. And this article in no way dissapoints.

But can you at least try to give a smidgen of accuracy to you slurs, or at least more evidence that 'my mate Noam says so.'

Im sure others will be along later to take the rest of this feeble effort apart, accompanied by the usual groupies ready to scream 'necon!!!' at all those who dissent from the Word of Pilger.

Robert Powell
11 December 2008 at 12:10

Necon!!!

PHC
11 December 2008 at 14:07

It is simply false to claim that "Obama's campaign was funded largely by rapacious capital." Pilger is either deligerately lying or hasn't bothered to obtain the most basic information about American federal campaign finance laws and the Obama campaign's fundraising history.

89% of Obama's donations came from individuals: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638

Even the much-discussed report by the Campaign Finance Institute finds that half of Obama's donors gave less than $1000: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216

As for those "large" donors who gave more than $1000 - just how large were they? The maximum aggregate amount any individual may make to a candidate for federal office is $2,300 - though in practice a donor can "max out" once during the primary campaign and once again during the general election, meaning in practice the most any individual could donate to Barack Obama was $4,600. Meanwhile, the old "soft money" donations by which corporations used to funnel money to the political parties has been banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_...

Interestingly, it was the Democrats who were most dependent on corporate soft money before the ban - largely because the Republicans had been successful at tapping into a vast network of smaller donors thanks to the efforts of the conservative movement. Obama's key fundraising innovation was to use technology and mass participation to create a similar network of small and medium Democratic donors.

But back to those "large" donors. A simple question: does anyone seriously believe that a presidential candidate can be bought for $4,600? In reality, $4,600 buys you a photo with the candidate. It doesn't buy you the candidate.

John Pilger may find it impossible to believe that Barack Obama is capable of making his own decisions. But Pilger has certainly failed to furnish any evidence that campaign donors are pulling Obama's strings.

antileft
11 December 2008 at 14:33

It must hurt being pilger. The place he hates the most rules the world, and when it stops ruling the world, itll be ruled by china which is even more capitalist.

Poor, poor pilger. Putting all his hopes on little inflation-ravaged venezuela changing the world. Rant on, pilger, rant on! You lose whatever happens! Enjoy the bitter truth!

Carl Jones
11 December 2008 at 15:05

pete999, its an accepted FACT that Obamas election funding may have come from small donations, but these came from the corporations. Obama out spent the other side by 10-1!

Carl Jones
11 December 2008 at 15:12

Ok, but my money (not much of it.lol) is on Pilger....history will prove Pilger right.

As Joe Biden has already said, "Obama will face a NEW crisis in the openning months of his presidency"...the NWO will provide Obama with "a get out of Jail" card, so he can escape all his empty election promises.LOL

Take your pick...more terror, more (new) war, food crisis, collapsing Saudi oil production or natural looking pandemic?

Cybertiger
11 December 2008 at 15:53

“Obama has assigned Madeleine Albright to report on how to "strengthen US leadership in responding to genocide".”

Obama: you CANNOT be serious!

And where was that grotesque cuckoo, the US Ambassador to the UN, when the Tutsi were being slaughtered in Rwanda?

PHC
11 December 2008 at 15:54

Carl Jones @ 15:05. No, it is not "an accepted fact." Again, 89% of Obama's funds came from individuals: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638

If you want to dispute that, I'd like to see you cite a source.

Carl Jones
11 December 2008 at 16:05

Cybertiger; I was thinking of Albrights comments, that 1,000,000 dead Iraqi`s would be "worth it in the end"...dont you just love the NWO.LOL

Carl Jones
11 December 2008 at 16:12

PHC, I`ve spoken with a many Americans and none of them believe that even a high proportion of Obams election funds came from individuals....democrats at that. If you haven`t heard, 1 in 10 US homes are being repossessed, or are about to be....sure, they have plenty of money. If I had the time, I`d find some sources, but I don`t, maybe we could just take Pilgers word for it?

PHC
11 December 2008 at 16:21

No, sorry, we can't "just take Pilger's word for it." Pilger is not doing his job as a journalist - providing evidence for his claims. You haven't provided any evidence either, beyond your assertion that "you've spoken with many Americans" and registered their opinions.

I'll stop picking on you since it's pointless. But I will note that I have provided evidence to support my assertions whereas neither you nor Pilger have provided evidence for yours. To be fair to you, that should be Pilger's job, but hey ho. I share your concern about the economic crisis, though. That's why I'm glad we've elected a President who is promising a jobs and stimulus package worth as much as $1 trillion. That kind of thing is why so many Americans voted for him - and why so many, including myself (not that I have much to give) donated to him.

Carl Jones
11 December 2008 at 17:27

In January 2008, Obama raised £35 million, Clinton rasied $13 million. Clinton attracted older wealthier voters, she also had wider democrat support, winning all the key swing states. Obama received just over 62% more than Clinton. BTW, McCain and Clinton were close on funding and youll note, this was a staggering amount to donate in JANUARY!!

me
11 December 2008 at 18:27

surprised me that america voted for a muslim.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkjFc3S21nY

Carl Jones
11 December 2008 at 21:14

me; Amerika voted for a Kenyan, and the last time I said that on this site, I was CENSORED! lol

explodingbadger
12 December 2008 at 01:12

"me" that was hilarious very funny and scary at the same time people would believe that.

Here are the top contributors to obamas campaign

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid...

University of California $1,069,898

Goldman Sachs $884,907

Harvard University $732,150

Microsoft Corp $714,358

Google Inc $704,649

JPMorgan Chase & Co $600,210

Citigroup Inc $586,866

National Amusements Inc $566,409

Time Warner $517,748

Sidley Austin LLP $496,445

UBS AG $484,369

Stanford University $482,199

Skadden, Arps et al $473,424

Wilmerhale Llp $471,729

Columbia University $427,766

Morgan Stanley $425,502

Latham & Watkins $425,324

IBM Corp $416,946

University of Chicago $416,055

Lehman Brothers $410,974

fkotler
12 December 2008 at 01:54

Pilger's right. A lot of us here in the US see that this is not "change you can believe in." The appointments - for both foreign and domestic policy - reveal a great deal about where we're headed. Groundhog Day 1992. It was predictable based on the large support Obama received from Wall Street throughout his campaign. But the appointments are even worse than many expected. Really amounts to a betrayal and it will be very interesting to see how people react under these economic conditions.

taghioff.info
12 December 2008 at 06:24

Interesting point John, I hope you are right, because things really do need to change now. As in we are fried if they don't. So yes, perhaps Obama, by demonstrating that this way of mobilising people works, will be an accidental hero.

However there is another way of looking at this. Whilst Obama is on the right in Eurpean terms, he is on the left in terms of US political culture. So just as he can be seen as a trojan to the left, so can his appointments be seen as a trojan to the right. Who could accuse a man of such continuity of being a socialist.

One thing that is clear about Obama is that he is very clever and good at getting what he wants. I am not sure weither having him in charge in America is re-assuring or frightening, but I think he will get things done, whatever they may be...

Gideon Polya
12 December 2008 at 06:57

Excellent analysis and excellent article by John Pilger. One sincerely HOPES but it just doesn't look good.

If Malcolm X hadn't been assassinated back in 1965 he would have provided a similarly honest and unflinching analysis.

Not mentioned in the article (there is only so much space) were the following important matters.

1. Obama's first appointment as his Chief Excecutive Officer was an extreme right wing Zionist, Israeli-American son of an Irgun terrorist (a distinguished friend recently described how his uncle went all the way through WW2 as a British soldier, only to be murdered by the Irgun in post-war Palestine - that , of course, is simply ONE of millions of tragedies due to violent Zionist colonization of Palestine: 7 million refugees; 0.3 million post-1967 avoidable deaths; 0.2 million post-1967 under-5 infant deaths, 90% avoidable and due to Israeli war crimes in gross violation of the Geneva Convention; see "We are all Palestinian. Apartheid Israel’s Gaza Concentration Camp & Palestinian Genocide": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/19915/42/ ).

2. Hillary Clinton, a latter-day Lady Macbeth but on a MILLION-FOLD greater scale has the deaths of 4 million Iraqis on her hands (Lady M.: "Here’s the smell of the blood still; all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand": http://www.bartleby.com/46/4/51.html ) and is complicit both in the Gulf and Sanctions Wars against Iraq (1.9 million excess deaths, 1.2 million under-5 infant deaths, 1990-2003) and the Iraq War (post-invasion excess deaths 2 million, post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 0.6 million, 6 million refugees) - as is Robert Gates and other Obama appointees.

3. Obama and his new Bush-ite friends have said that they will prosecute EXPANSION of the genocidal war on Occupied Afghanistan (post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths 4-6 million; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.1million; 4 million refugees (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/ ) .

max caulfield
12 December 2008 at 07:17

Proof in our wild west cyberspace is at best problematic. The point is, by highlighting legitimate queries around this newly crowned world leader, Pilger remains just as relevant today.

By now we should have come to see more what Obama's bipartisan "blank screen" politics represent post Election. It certainly should not seen as downgrading or pre-adjucating on his administrative abilities; equally his iconic status on the Leftist movement needs greater questioning, belatedly though it may be.

What troubles though, and possibly should be revolting, is a pervasive complacent mindset surrounding his meteoric rise. Of course a divisive Culture War was already in place when Bush came to office; debates on both sides were sophisticated and glib, and untrue media treatment has ensured that viewpoints, often having more to do with senses of fashion, were taken to be prevailing perceptions and realities. Under that atmosphere Bush's presidency no doubt convulvsed senses and subsequent wars only served to mobilise massive opposition; a resulting emotional limbo was something that Obama succesfully tapped into.

The right question to pose now is whether the world would not have acted as equally hysterical should a seeming national emergency occasion in the reign of Obama who also sought war (spun as non-dumb war)as a solution. For that would then place the onus on us citizenry of the world who took pride in progressing a long way from medieaval warlike tyranny or radicalised religious fanaticism. That is perhaps the unarticulated part of Pilger's message.

eddie32
12 December 2008 at 11:54

Gosh that hair shirt must be hurting Pilger. You are one of the most negative and pessimistic journalists around. It must be horrible inside your head.

antileft
12 December 2008 at 14:28

"3. Obama and his new Bush-ite friends have said that they will prosecute EXPANSION of the genocidal war on Occupied Afghanistan (post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths 4-6 million; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.1million; 4 million refugees"

I find this pretty idiotic. Iraq was a mess and shouldnt have happened. But afghanistan?! Unless you dont believe that bin laden was responsible for september 11th (something thats possible but extremely unlikely unless youre a nutbar like carl jones) then what else were they supposed to do?! Just ignore the fact they were attacked?! Come on- be realistic!

And dont link afghanistan to iraq- you make your opposition to the bad one sound like hysterical anti americanism.

chris37uk
12 December 2008 at 14:29

Pilger is right. The Obama brand is just that a marketing gimmick to sell the same old same old. People were sucked into the hype, but the truth is that it is just the status quo re-branded.

That the neo liberal press and the 'progressives' refuse to accept that just shows how taken in they are.

Cybertiger
12 December 2008 at 15:20

Harryantileft said,

"Unless you dont believe that bin laden was responsible for september 11th ... then what else were they supposed to do?! Just ignore the fact they were attacked?! Come on- be realistic!"

Perhaps the Yanks could have 'turned the other cheek' like good Christians. That the Yanks did not, makes me suspicious that they may be bad Christians.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 15:25

I've read some of the vitriolic comments here relating to John Pilgers article. It's the same tactic used about virtually everything he writes. Here, specifically, is the alligation that he is deliberately lying and falsifying data relating to how Obama financed his campaign.

Pilger only said that Obama's campaign was funded largely by rapaceous capital, what's controversial about that? It was, largely. That Obama received substantial donations from other sources, small donors, doesn't make this statement wrong.

The links referred to alleging that Obama received his funding from lots of little people do not show anything of the sort, or at the very least they do not show what the poster above say they do. They are distorting the stats contained in these two sources. Statistics can be read and interpreted in many different ways, numbers are not just numbers.

For example, what does 89% of Obama's donations came from individuals really mean? It doesn't mean that 89% of the money Obama raised came from small donors who gave small ammounts, a few dollars or a couple of hundred dollars. But this statistic is used to imply that this is the case. As far as one can tell Obama didn't receive a higher proportion of his donations from small donations than the other candidates normally do, an certainly not McCain.

Obama recieved roughly the same amount from large as small donations. In total he collected around 750,000,000 dollars. Obama raised a lot of money, but it didn't all come from small donations.

This idea that idividuals can maximum cotribute a few thousand dollars doesn't make sense. One can bundle contributions to candidates campaigns. There are many bundled donations to both candidates of $100,000 dollars and $500,000 dollars.

In conclusion, substantially more than half of Obama's money came from large donors.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 15:51

Unfortunately Pilger is correct in his harsh assessment of the political reality surrounding Obama. So much relating to Obama is very clever and effective marketing of a new brand or product. It's exemplary. But has little to do with politics because on isn't primarily "selling" policies, one is selling a leader a personality, using many of the same techiniques on uses in Hollywood to create a persona or star.

During the campaign Obama cleverly gave the impression, which wasn't examined in sufficiently by the media, that he was going to withdraw all of the occupation army from Iraq and end the war.

However, people around his campaign, didn't say this at all, they hedged. Now, the message is changing. Obama has begun to talk about withdrawing all "combat" troops. What are combat troops exactly? What does ending the war mean? Is there a war going on now in Iraq, or is it an occupation?

Gates has recently, a few days ago, talked about keeping risidual forces in Iraq, around 50,000 men in bases for decades. It is inconceivable that he would have said this without consulting Obama. Obviously, after having worked so hard to gain control of Iraq's oil the Americans will never had control of it back to the Iraqis. It's far too valuable for that.

The reason the "war" stopped in Iraq was because the Americans were losing it, so before they were totally defeated, which could have had catastrophic consequences, they called a de facto ceasefire with the most powerful Iraqi resistance movements. This ceasefire suite both sides, especially the Americans who could pretend they hadn't been defeated in their plans for Iraq, and the Iraqis who could consolidate.

What will be interesting to observe is Iraq's reaction when they realize the Americans have no intention of ever leaving Iraq and its oil and gas reserves.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 16:04

Oddly the FBI don't have Bin Laden on their website as being wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks, this is because the amount of concrete evidence linking him with the attacks is remarkably thin.

What we do know is that the terrorist gang, were not Afghans or Iraqis, but from Saudi Arabia. We also know that the Taliban government in Afghanistan were perfectly willing to hand Bin Laden over to the Americans or an international authority, but they wanted to see evidence that he was guilty. The Americans refused to provide this evidence then or now.

So, instead of attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq in connection with 9/11 they should have attacked Saudi Arabia, because what little evidence there is, point to the attack being planned and financed from there.

The Americans are in both Afghanistan and Iraq for longterm strategic reasons which have virtually nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. That guff is for public consumption, a fairytale for the credulous.

me
12 December 2008 at 17:39

This one made me think.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sj91NH5fvw

Gerry Myer
12 December 2008 at 17:53

Bismark stated that “politics is the art of the possible” and J K Galbraith later countered with “politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. We do not know Obama’s true aims. In time Pilger’s cynicism might be vindicated. We must wait and see. What is certain is that no candidate who overtly campaigns on a progressive radical ticket and is explicit about policy has the remotest chance of receiving a major party nomination in the USA, still less the occupancy of the White House. It is inconceivable that a Hugo Chavez could be elected in that country. A large portion of the population of the world’s most powerful state are remarkably ignorant and cannot be expected to become enlightened overnight. All we can hope is that Obama is playing the long game. There is a glimmer of hope. With Bush there has been none.

writeon
12 December 2008 at 18:54

Modern politics in the United States, and this is the quick version, is about the opportunity to vote for a candidate that has already been chosen by someone else.

The sheer cost of the last election, over 1.5 billion dollars means that any ordinary candidate, one without massive economic resources, stands virtually no chance. A candidate must come from one of the two leading parties. Two parties that have retained a monopoly on political power in Washington for over two centuries. This is quite a feat, though whether this really qualifies as "democracy" is highly debatable.

Personally I don't think it is a democratic system, money would appear to be far more important than mere votes, one cannot perhaps buy an election, but one can certainly influence one.

I don't think Pilger is cynical so much as brutally honest and unsentimental. He, like me, has seen and heard it all before. It's a shame because Americans deserve better. Lions led by donkeys.

Carl Jones
12 December 2008 at 22:40

This is why we need an end to party politics, here and in the US.

a.m.r.
12 December 2008 at 22:49

Having a two-party state is probably better than having a one-party state.

a.m.r.
13 December 2008 at 00:02

John Pilger: "Contrary to myth, Obama's campaign was funded largely by rapacious capital, such as Citigroup and others responsible for the sub-prime mortgage scandal, whose victims were mostly African Americans and other poor people."

Citibank can't win - first it's criticised for not giving loans to those who were at considered a high risk of not being able to repay the loan (those without jobs or incomes).

Then when it does provide those loans, and the loans fail to be repaid, as predicted, it is accused of causing the sub-prime mortgage disaster.

What should Citibank have done?

writeon
13 December 2008 at 00:36

In reality the United Sates is a one-party state, as Obama's appointments illustrate so well. One party with two factions that alternate sharing power, to give the impression of a political plurality and real choice, where there is none. Twin parties in power for over two centuries. Two parties representing primarily business interests, pretending, with gusto, to be rivals and offering a real democratic alternative.

Gideon Polya
13 December 2008 at 00:51

What we understand is that about 3,000 people were murdered on 9-11 2001 but we do NOT know who did it – notwithstanding utterly implausible, Hollywood-style, anti-Science propaganda from the egregiously dishonest Bush Administration and compliant, racist, holocaust-ignoring, Bush-ite, Western mainstream media that this extraordinary atrocity was pulled off by Medieval “men in caves” in Afghanistan.

Thus former Italian president and intelligence intimate Professor Francesco Cossiga has identified the US CIA and Israel Mossad as responsible for 9-11 (see “Were US and Israel behind 9/11?”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18569/26/ ) and top scientists, scholars, military and intelligence people seriously question the "men in caves" "official Bush version" of the 9-11 atrocity (see : http://mwcnews.net/content/view/22944/26/ , http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23294/42/ and Scholars for 9/11 truth: http://911scholars.org/ ).

While the perpetrators of 9-11 remain unknown – “men in caves”, passive US complicity or active US complicity remain the 3 major hypotheses – we certainly DO know for sure who is responsible for the 9-11 million violent and non-violent excess deaths associated so far with the Bush Wars 1990-2008 (as estimated from UN and medical literature data) – the Bushes and the Clintons (see “9-11 excuse for US global genocide. The real 9-11 atrocity: millions dead (9-11 million) in Bush Wars”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/ ).

It is estimated that 0.6 million people have died from opiate-related causes (about 60,000 in the USA alone) due to Bush restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry (see: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR.html ).

After Chile’s 9-11 atrocity in 1973 (the CIA backed coup on 11 September 1973) in which 3,000 Chileans were murdered, LEGAL extradition of Pinochet was sought. The VIOLENT, Obama-backed US response to 9-11 has been associated so far with 4-6 million excess Afghan deaths.

Gideon Polya
13 December 2008 at 05:25

False, ad hominem abuse is obnoxious and hardly constitutes a reasonable argument .

I repeat, the sane, humane response to crimes is to bring the alleged perpetrators to trial under national or international law.

The utterly irrational, inhumane response is to kill millions of people in a remote country where some of the alleged "masterminds" behind the crime are alleged to be located - indeed Obama tells us that these alleged "master minds" are not even in Occupied Afghanistan but in Pakistan and hence his irrational, inhumane desire to step up the killing in Occupied Afghanistan and to extend this mass murder to Pakistan.

Get your calculator and consult data from the UN Population Division (see: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ ) and you will quickly determine that the "annual death rate" is 6.2% for under-5 year old infants in Occupied Afghanistan - this appalling "annual death rate" is similar to that for Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese in World War 2 (10.2%), for which crime responsible Japanese commanders were tried and hanged.

Consult WHO (see: http://www.who.int/en/ ) and you will find a major cause for this US-imposed carnage in Occupied Afghanistan: the "total annual per capita medical expenditure" permitted by the Occupiers in Occupied Afghanistan is $26 as compared to $6,347 for Occupier the United States of America - clear evidence of an horrendous and continuing war crime by the US and its White Australian, UK, and NATO allies in gross violation of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (see: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm ).

Decent human beings painfully morally introspect and also empathize with the Other (see Walter Davis' "Death's Dream Kingdom. The American Psyche since 9-11": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/8761/26/ ). The warmongers - whether Bush, Clinton or Obama - do neither and hence over 2 million post-invasion Afghan infant deaths, so far.

Carl Jones
13 December 2008 at 08:42

19 Saudi patsies and then the US omits 19 pages on Saudi (alledged) terorism!! LOL

Talk to any educated person from outside the West, and they`ll tell you all the major terror attacks were carried out by parties working to a Western agenda.

The war on terror is an illustration of MSM brainwashing power. I was talking with aa American the other day, he was right by the FIRST WTC bombing that alledgedly killed 6 people and injured 1,042? He was walking across a walkway, as he looked down he could see all the emergency services...he watched them carryout 25-30 body bags...who were these people? Why did they under report the number of dead?

I think the US authorities/MSM weren`t fully wired into false flag terrorism and under reported, or maybe THEY used this false flag attack to kill 25-30 prisoners?

I have said this before and its worth repeating. About a week before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto was interviewed by Sir David Frost on his "Across this World" show (Al Jazeera MI6 front). Benazir slips in the name of Osama Bin Laden`s assassin. Now, it doesn`t matter if its ture or false, she said it. After she stopped speaking, Frost just blanked what she said. This was watched in newsrooms across the world and all these NWO journalists remain silent, talk about the kings new clothes.LOL A week later, Bhutto was dead. BTW, the BBC censored the above interview.LOL

I was censored last week for commenting on Mumbai. THEY can`t stand it, when you pull apart their false flag terror constructs, using THEIR MSM. I pulled THEIR CCTV apart.LOL

I have followed the Menezes murder. I don`t agree with most of the official line and there is clear evidence of a constructed story. We only have the states word, that Met. officers fired the fatal shots. Why were the SAS on the ground that day. Menezes left home, got on a bus and headed for Brixton tube, but this was closed, so Menezes got on another bus and headed for Stockwell tube...its not rocket science. cont.

Carl Jones
13 December 2008 at 09:14

I know Stockwell tube station and the official sequence of events/timings does not make sense. We see CCTV of alledged police running through the station, down the escalator, but then the CCTV stops, no platform or train CCTV (LOL), Menezes had found a seat and sat down, so it wasn`t that busy. If Menezes went to the nearest carriage and had time to sit down, then everyone had sat down and in the few SECONDS before the doors closed, the killers arrived, alledgedly directed to the carriage where Menezes was sitting....who keep the doors from closing? We see in the CCTV that C2 and C!2 at the top of the escalator, Menezes isn`t on the escalator, either the surveilance officer held the doors open, which ment he was inside the carriage, but of course, there are no witnesses who say they saw this surveilance officer fighting with the tube train doors, or the train driver who couldn`t close the doors, C2 hadn`t even got his gun out at the top of the escalator.

And none of the witnesses believed they were police. C2 and C12 should be exposed, even if it means an end to their careers. You`d think the UK was a bannana republic with death squads....and you`d be right.LOL

Remember the witness who said he heard 9 shots fired? Within the hour, the police said 5 shots were fired and now we are told 7 shots were fired....THEY don`t like witnesses.LOL

cosmoos
13 December 2008 at 10:26

Writeon ,you are absolutely right.It amazes me how easily voters get taken in buy politicians.The system always wins.

We have the same in the UK. It's called the status quo.The illusion presented by them(politicians) would have us think that fundamental change is inevitable,but the same people pull the strings.It's a grand sleight of hand.

Paracelsus
13 December 2008 at 11:35

A question for John Pilger- would he have preferred a MCCAIN victory to that of Obama? presumably wedded to the Leninist concept of "the worse the better"( the worse things become, the better the prospects for Marxist revolution), one can only conclude that he would! Is there ANY president since 1945 that meets with his approval???

MaterialMonkee
13 December 2008 at 11:41

Pilger actually won the first journalist to use "the Uncle Tom" phrase!

He doesn't like this guy.

It has to be said alot of what he's saying here about continuity is true, but I'd have to reject any hypothesis that this is related to a deception of the electorate. I'd presume that the kind of Whitehouse policy Pilger would like to see would be that espoused by Nader but the fact of the matter is if Obama actually said anything like this he'd get election results comparable to Nader. This election had a record turnout and a considerable amount f people voted for that Palin chick.

The whole Choamsky thing about people being deceived by the political system and really they want to vote for a communal anarchist state is bunk.There's a hell of a lot of people who would want to impose old skool christian values on the bulk of the US population and would be quite happy to see those values spread across the globe by force.

I would class myself as an anti-authoritarian however this idea that we're all anti-authoritarians that are just subdued by television, big-macs and Hollywood films really is dumb. If anything the consumerism probably acts to subdue the mass murdering mob-mentality that is still tearing up Africa, killed 75 million Chinese people and burnt witches at the stake in medieval Europe.

writeon
13 December 2008 at 12:45

Now, this is, in a sense, a very theoretical discussion -lots of what ifs, compared to what actually happened.

I've noticed that several people have mentioned Ralph Nadar, that if a serious candidate, like Obama presented policies like Nadar's he wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected. This observation, in itself is interesting and tells us a lot about the US political system and how much choice there is for voters.

I don't think that Nadar is an extremist, left-socialist, revolutionary. Seen from a European perspective he's bascially a Social Democrat. There are lots of them in Europe. They are mainstream, middle-of-the road types. Yet lots of Americans don't think this kind of guy with moderate social democratic, reformist, policies stands a chance in the US. This is correct. This interesting question is, why?

Are most Americans on most issues really that different to most Europeans? I think not, or at the least it's very debatable whether this dogma that Americans so different is true. Is America a right of centre country?

Now, elections and voting are one thing and what people believe, the hopes and fears, their attitudes are something else. What strikes me is that if one conducts careful opinion polls among Americans one finds results to a whole range of economic, social and political questions that aren't significantly different to how most Europeans think.

Of course Americans are apparently more religious than many Europeans, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have conservative views on all issues. One can be against abortion, but support environmental legislation. Christians are not all rightwingers in the United States. It's far more complex than that.

But there seems to be a substantial discontinuity between the attitudes ordinary Americans actually have and the choices they make during presidential elections. Why? Is this because they suddenly turn to the right when they get into the polling booth or what?

writeon
13 December 2008 at 13:07

The crucial question is, why do Americans vote for candidates that don't represent their views?

First, lots of Americans, usually don't vote at all. Usually only about half of them vote in presidential elections. If one asks them why not the reply is usually because they don't support any of the candidates. It's not so much apathy, but alienation. So already one's "removed" half the potential voters from the game, rather smart.

The twin party system has a stranglehold on the American political system. A third party candidate has a really hard time surviving and getting heard, even if that candidate has policies that reflect the views of the majority of Americans. Nadar, for example, was frozen-out of the debates almost totally by the system which is controlled by the two main parties. Nadar, if he'd have had the opportunity would really have livened-up the debates. It would have been good television, entertaining, a bit different. Only it wasn't allowed. The twin parties kept their grip.

Chomsky isn't saying that Americans are dumb. He's saying that the Ameican political system is dumb, not the same thing at all. It's a dumb system because it excludes views that don't conform to a very narrow definition of what democracy is. The two parties have the system sown up. They control who Americans are allowed to choose between and vote for. This is the crucial area, not telling "dumb" Americans who they can or can't vote for, it's not that simplistic, it's about controlling which candidates they are "allowed" to choose between.

The vast cost of elections 1.5 billion last time, also has a controlling function within the system. No candidate outside the mainstream is arrested, or thrown in jail, like in a dumbass dictatorship. It's incredibly difficult, but one can stand, it's just that virtually no one will hear what one really has to say and the tv debates are controlled by the twin parties, so it's impossible to break into their cosy party.

writeon
13 December 2008 at 13:26

Basically the US political system is rigged. Rigged to favour big candidates, supported by big parties, with big, big, money behind them.

Americans aren't significantly dumber than other people, but they are really abused by an entrenched and corrupt system that on a whole range of issues simply does not reflect their views or them. Look at Congress. How is it that these old, white, millionaires keep getting elected time after time? How representative are old, white, millionaires of the American people? In a functioning democracy aren't the representatives of the people supposed to "represent" the people? These guys are freaks! Why in country where most people aren't white millionaires would ordinary people vote for these guys? Here is the question that puzzles me. Do they really vote for these people becuase they think they represent them politically, or because Americans don't really have a choice? The choice of candidate has been made for them already by the political machine, take it or leave it! The "choice" is yours, ho, ho, ho!

Obviously I'm doing a lot of simplifying here, but I really believe this is how the system works. It's not a totally rotten and overt dictatorship, but neither is it spectacularly and transparently democratic and fair.

I honestly believe the system is owned and controlled by bascially the same handful of people who own and control the rest of society. And we know that wealth and power are not anywhere near being equally distributed in America. Nobody would allege this surely? America isn't an equal society. It's a market society. A capitalist society first and foremost and "democracy" second. Everything is bought and sold, everything has price, the bottom line is holy. Money talks.

So in a society like this, where wealth and power are so unevenly distributed, why would politics be any different? Politics are bought and sold in the marketplace as well, and is this democracy? Who really chooses this system?

me
13 December 2008 at 13:37

Right on,writeon.

When the righteous are in authority,the people rejoice:but when the wicked beareth rule,the people mourn.

a.m.r.
13 December 2008 at 17:00

"Basically the US political system is rigged. Rigged to favour big candidates, supported by big parties, with big, big, money behind them. [..] The vast cost of elections 1.5 billion last time, also has a controlling function within the system."

As pointed out upthread, Obama raised 89% of his vast campaign donations from individuals. The internet has facilitated making individual donations. 50 million people giving $20 each is a billion, quite substantial.

There are other political parties in the states, including communist ones. If enough people were interested in them, those parties would naturally grow in organisation and strength. Public financing is also available to parties.

I don't think it's fair to describe the system as rigged.

Doubtless the laws determining the financing of political parties can be improved, though.

writeon
13 December 2008 at 19:12

Statistics, juggling with numbers and figures are notoriously unreliable and easy to manipulate.

The post by PHC above does not give an accurate account of the content of the two sites he mentioned above relating to Oama's fundraising profile. It's partisan. Don't take my word for it go and look for yourselves.

89% of Obama's money came from individuals, so what? What's significant about this figure? Apart from the fact that 89% sounds like a really big percentage. But what does it really mean? An idividual that gives a hundred dollars isn't the same as an individual that give $100,000 dollars or a $1,000,000.

The point is, this figure of 89% to the untrained mind, in relation to statistics, gives the impression that 89% of Obama's campaign money came from small donations, from ordinary people, from a movement, not from super-rich people or Wallstreet. That somehow Obama isn't beholden to anyone. That he is different. He raised lots of money, but he didn't raise more as proportion from ordinary people than McCain or other candidates usually do.

It's correct to say that the system is rigged. It is rigged in favour of the established twin parties and is definitely biased against small parties. If the US system is so transparently fair and democractic, why are there so few parties represented in Congress? Just two. Two, decade after decade. Century after century. Isn't such a system even a little suspect? If this system existe in any other country apart from the United States, it would be condemned as profoundly undemocratic. In a democracy there has to be a realistic possiblity of changing the system by voting for a realistic alternative. This possibility doesn't really, if one is honest, exist in the United Sates. The twin party has a stranglehold on the polical system. The twin party does everything in its power, apart from an outright ban, to lock third party candidates out of the democratic system. This, unfortunately, is the reality.

a.m.r.
13 December 2008 at 19:21

"It's correct to say that the system is rigged. It is rigged in favour of the established twin parties and is definitely biased against small parties."

The small parties are small because they have a small amount of support from the population.

The reason the two parties are very similar in policies is because most people are agreed on most of the basic points of government and law.

writeon
13 December 2008 at 19:38

Sorry in adavance.

In theory, in a perfect world where there was balance and fariness and equal opportunities for all, and all political parties, campaigning on a level playing field, with equal access and treatment by the media, democracy could exist and the people would have a real choice and vote as they chose.

This isn't the system that exists in the real world, in the United States, in practice, in reality. In the United States two powerful and similar parties dominate totally and have done forever. The only way a small or third party stand a realistic chance is to have access to hundreds of millions of dollars so it can buy airtime and buy its way into the media, get noticed and get votes. The key word her is "buy" and remember this is supposed to be a democracy where votes count.

Evidence. Don't be fooled. Don't look at Nadar or some tiny communist revolutionary Marxist league. They don't really matter. They don't show how the system functions. Instead look at someone like the billionaire maveric third candidates like Peroit and the others. They spent their own money, a lot of it, in an attempt to break the stranglehold of the twin party system, and they were reasonably successful, not because of their politics, but because of the money, the dollars they had at their disposal. One needs money to buy oneself airtime and access, so that people can hear what one has to say, then one has a chance at least, but without money, forget it. One's success in the democratic process is directly proportional to the amount of dollars one has in one's war-chest. Sad, but true.

Finally, Obama's money didn't come overwhelmingly from lot of little people, only about half did. Most came from Wallstreet that dumped the Republicans this time and shifted towards Obama. It was simply time for a change and a facelift for the brand, brand America.

Rossa
13 December 2008 at 19:44

antileft, get yourself back to the Daily Mail you make as much sense as the drivel they peddle.

writeon
13 December 2008 at 19:52

a.m.r.

I have such difficulty accepting that you really believe the things you say, do you? I simply can't reconcile it with objective reality. One cannot believe, as an adult, in a formalistic version of how the American political system works that is so primative, simplistic and detached from reality. It's not even highschool level civics. I doubt one can find a single American who believes this kindergarten version of how the American electoral system works. It's so simple and so wrong.

The point is, why are some parties small and some big? Is it really only about politics and support? Why? As everything else can be bought and sold in the American market system why not politics too and influence? Is politics really the determining factor? How many Americans even know what the communists, for example, stand for? The answer? Harldly anyone knows the political platform of the tiny American communist party.

Money is the determining factor in American elections, everyone knows this. The more more money a party has the more votes they get. This is me simplifying a bit, but this is basically how the system works in practice. To deny this requires one to refuse to see reality in the face and prefer to look instead at a crude and ridiculous facsimile of reality framed purely by ideology. But then for some people ideology trumps everything, everytime, even reality when it's staring them in the face. Money rules, ok?

writeon
13 December 2008 at 20:58

What's true is that most Americans are, more or less, agreed on a lot of things, like better care for the aged, a decent minimum wage, that taxes should be fairer, that corporations should pay tax at the same rate as individuals, that there should be adequate unemployment benefit, that their schools need more mony, that healtcare should be affordable for everyone, that too much money is wasted by the central government ect. Lots and lots of perfectly reasonable, moderate things, that would make society fairer. Most Americans support a kinder, gentler and fairer society. No surprise there. It's obvious, all of it. Not asking for much are they? Typical European Social Democracy. They want a decent and fairer country to live in. They don't want millions of people living in abject poverty and they certainly don't support the lavish lifestyles of the super-rich. Why would they?

Yet, what's striking, is how few of their political leaders support what the people say they want over and over again, in opinion polls carried out by respectable polling organisations. The wishes of the people are simply ignored time after time as soon as the politicians get elected and head for Washington.

One more current example. The great bank bailout. Congress was overwhelmed by a veritable tidal wave of protest trying to stop the bailout, or at the very least apply really tough conditions. Some Congressmen were receiving calls a 1000 to 1 against giving welfare to the banks, which are generally hated along with the rest of Wallstreet. Opinion polls showed massive oppostion to the structure of the huge bailout. Yet did this matter, did it do any good, did anyone really listen? The answer is no. Wallstreet speaks with a louder voice, its interests count and it gets listened to, way over and above what the American people do. The system is rigged and a sham.

Gideon Polya
13 December 2008 at 23:10

Writeon - I believe it was my hero, the wonderful John Pilger, who described this "sham" in one word "murdochracy" i.e. democracies in which "informed one-man-one-vote" is perverted by by huge media conglomerates (see John Pilger's "Blair's Legacy: From Liberalism to Murdochracy": http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger57.html ).

Of course others have followed suit e.g. see "Western Murdochracy Mainstream Media IGNORE real 9-11 atrocity - 9-11 million deaths in the Bush Wars ": http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/western-murdochr... and "Western Murdochracy Denial & Google Censorship of British Indian Holocaust & Churchill’s Crimes ": http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article17801 .

a.m.r.
14 December 2008 at 04:06

writeon, you are getting lost in the details - the democratic process is not as smooth and clear-cut as we'd wish.

Despite the large number of phone calls against the bail-out, Americans were willing to grudgingly tolerate it if it would help the economy. (And when you think about it, people who agreed with the bail-out were unlikely to be calling in, so your statistic is not telling).

The reason socialist, communist and other alternative parties are not large parties is because they don't have a large amount of support. There's no rigged system keeping them down.

fairplay
14 December 2008 at 04:44

ask ron paul how fair the democratic process is in the USA. a man of substance, with huge support who was completely ignored by the corrupt media establishments. with fair coverage he would have beaten even "god" himself, obama, hands down

the media is the most powerful tool in american politics without question

fairplay
14 December 2008 at 04:46

amr

1000 to 1 phone calls against the bailout by the way. quite strong public opinion!

writeon
14 December 2008 at 09:50

I'm not getting lost in details at all. The examples I referred to illustrate how the system works in reality, not the cartoon version. Your arguments are weak and unconvincing. You really don't even sound like you believe them yourself, not really, but ideology tells you they have to be right despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The bailout isn't helping the economy. It's helping the banks, at the expense of the economy and the taxpayer. The vast majority of ordinary Americans know this, which is why they were so angry and complained so vigorously. Americans aren't stupid, they know how the system works; gold for the rich and brass for everyone else.

The process is not democratic. It's not even fair. The system is biased towards the big, established and rich parties and effectively ignores and pushes smaller parties, despite their support, aside, in favour of the twin parties. Any half-way, sentient person, looking at the process calmly and objectively, cannot, unless they force themselves, characterise this system as a democratic process. It's not a dictatorship with sham elections like in the old Soviet Block, it doesn't have to be, but it certainly isn't democratic. It's something else. Something imbetween the two.

Why do you bend over backwards to support and defend such a openly corrupt system? And your statement that the fact of such massive oppostion to the bailout of the banks means so little is odd considering you apparently support democratic principles! Also stating that those who supported the bailout wouldn't have expressed their support is wrong as well. The whole point is that normally on controlversial issues the split in opinion is far closer. It was the massive, overwhelming, negative response to the bailout plans that so shocked the political establishment. But in the end, it meant nothing. So much for "representative democracy" in action!

The people's political views don't really matter in this system. They are no longer citizens.

writeon
14 December 2008 at 11:23

Not only isn't the system especially democratic, it isn't even really capitalist anymore, or a free market system. It's doubtful whether it ever was, but what's glaringly obvious is that it's evolved into something else. It's become a kind of hybrid.

One learnt an enormous amount from World War Two. That a plan eocnomy could give colossal benefits and massive increases in production and wealth. The State apparently stepped back from obvious interference in the direction of the encomy after the war, but others stepped into that role.

Today the entire ethos and ideology of capitalism is being undermined from the inside in the United States. Competition in the market place, letting the successful grow and triumph, the weak have to be allowed to go under, economic, vulgar Darwinism; all that is being abandoned.

The banks, and the rest of the financial system, are bankrupt. There debts are vastly larger than their capital. They are in the read for trillions. Broken. Yet they are being given trillions in support from taxes. $8.5 trillion up to now, with more to come, far more. The captialist system on life-support, saved by the state and the taxpayer.

This isn't capitalism. It's socialism - of a kind. Perverted, inverted socialism. A form of totalitarian socialism, benefitting not all the people, but a small segment of the population, that like revolutionary Leninists, have captured the state apparatus and are now in charge of everything. The key is gaining total, unchecked and permanent access to the state's treasury. Once that's been achieved one has close to absolute power over society.

So this system isn't really "capitalist" or "democratic" anymore. What is it then? This is complex. Maybe it's something we haven't got a name for yet? A kind of inverted totalitarian, caste-like, state. The power of the state merging with the power of the marketplace? Control replacing Freedom? Perhaps the evolution of new kind of Fuedalism?

a.m.r.
14 December 2008 at 17:56

writeon: "This isn't capitalism. It's socialism - of a kind. Perverted, inverted socialism. A form of totalitarian socialism.."

Sorry, it's not totalitarian -you are distorting.

Totalitarian is when the state has a dictating say in all aspects of one's life. (See historical marxist socialist/communist states for real examples.).

It's been long recognised (eg. Adam Smith wrote of this), that the market can experience failures. Market failures are defined as when the market ceases to serve the good of the majority.

For example, it's been long known that the formation of monopolies and pricing cartels leads to market failures, and legislation has been introduced to curtail this.

Similarly, there is on-going legislation to deal with for other externalities such as pollution, envorinmental damage and over-use of limited resources.

You're trying to argue that such legislation is socialism - no it isn't - socialism is when there is common ownership of the means of production.

a.m.r.
14 December 2008 at 18:19

fairplay: "ask ron paul how fair the democratic process is in the USA. a man of substance, with huge support who was completely ignored by the corrupt media establishments."

He wasn't ignored - he was interviewed along with other candidates (althought not as much), and appeared at the debates alongside the other candidates.

fairplay: "with fair coverage he would have beaten even "god" himself, obama, hands down"

Probably not - he was a little bit too 'nutty' for most people.

But the fact that he was there as a candidate shows that candidates are represented if they have some popular support.

fairplay: "the media is the most powerful tool in american politics without question"

This is a fair point. The members of the media have exhibited huge biases, sometimes in opposing directions.

Clearly a state-owned replacement media outlet is a terrible solution, for the obvious reasons.

I tend to agree with George Soros: in support of the open society , alongside the existing laws for separation of powers, human rights, free speech and free elections, we also need to make explicit in law the requirement for a commitment to the truth.

writeon
14 December 2008 at 19:11

Fantasy Island. A place where dogma and threory are worshipped as if they were real and existed.

You simply cannot believe this stuff, amr. It doesn't describe what we can see all around us. You are kidding. Pulling my leg. It's Christmas and Santa's on his way! But we are adults surely? Fairytales are fun and entertaining and may contain a grain of truth, but not any more.

Why was Ron Paul designated as "nutty"? Who decides who is nutty? Capitalism with it's dogma of infinite economic growth on a planet of finite size could just as easily be termed "nutty." "Nutty" just means that one asks questions that challenge the established dogma.

I am not "distorting" I'm attempting to describe the type of society we are living in. Adam Smith would have truned in his grave at the way his ideas have been misappropriated and prostituted by the right-wing to justify all sorts of horrors.

Your definition go "totalitarian" is crude and inadequate, it doesn't include market totalitarianism. Totalitarian states don't necessarily have to control all aspects of one's life, just the most important ones.

In a market totalitarian state total control isn't required, because it's important to maintain the illusion of "freedom" that one has a choice. Up to a point this is true, except that one hasn't the choice of repalcing the market sytem with another.

What characterises a market sytem in deep systemic crisis, is that "freedom" and "choice" are increasingly priced out of the reach of more and more people, exactly what's happening now, as credit and money dries up and with it "freedom."

Perverted, inverted socialism, is when a particular group in society gains control of the means of production and uses it for its narrow, class, interests. They efffectively function as a society within society. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest.

Monopolies, are not an aberration, they are precisely what characterises mature capitalism, state-socialism, of the Western variety.

writeon
14 December 2008 at 19:29

A perfect example of what happens to people who live on Fantasy Island, who have eaten too many lotuses. The idea that one can pass laws, or make it an explict requirement that individuals ahere or committ to the "truth" whatever that is, is ridiculous, an absurdity, a Utopian dream.

Whilst even scientific truth and laws are problematic and contested in a philosophical sense, other forms of truth are even more open to interpretation and discussion.

In society what really matters, isn't "truth" abstract or not, what really matters is - Power. Who has it and who doesn't. Bourgeois democracy's most refind characteristic is to obscure and divert attention from fundamental questions relating to Power in society. Voting, elections, parties, the unfree press, the seperation of powers, human rights - are part of an elaborate mechanism of obsfucation.

a.m.r.
14 December 2008 at 19:39

writeon: "Why was Ron Paul designated as "nutty"? Who decides who is nutty? "

The voters decide.

For example, Ron Paul wishes for the U.S.A. to withdraw from the U.N. This view doesn't have much popular support.

Here are some quotes from Ron Paul's "Ron Paul Survivor Report" newsletter, concerning his views on black-skinned people:

"...our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Ron Paul tried to distance himself from these writings by saying that the words were written by an aide. Unfortunately, the articles were signed and distributed in his name, and these kind of sentiments had been expressed over many years.

Whether he just neglected to check what was being written in his name (in a newsletter created specificly by him for the dissemination of his views), or whether he is lying, either way it is a failure on his part.

His endorsement by many white supremacists leaders and groups probably did not help his electoral chances either.

a.m.r.
14 December 2008 at 19:48

Legislating for truth is problematic and needs to be approached careful, but there does seem to be a lack of accountability in media reporting. Perhaps there should be consequences for outright lies and deceptions.

Attempting to determine the truth is not a Utopian dream, as you try and make out:

Law courts, and scientists both make good attempts at determining the truth in their particular domains, to the best of their abilities. The results of their efforts tend to be better than not trying at all, and sometimes they are very good.

writeon
14 December 2008 at 23:28

This isn't about Ron Paul specifically, I don't personally care about him one way or the other, and dubious quotes don't really tell us very much about the structure of the American political system. What is interesting though is how the media labels certain individuals and their politics. And, normally, they are far, far, more agressive in relation to third party candidates than they are when labelling candidates from the big parties. It's striking how candidates outside the two party system regularly get labelled as "nutty" or something like it. Rarely does a candidate from one of the two dominant parties get labelled "nutty", even if they are!

The search for the "Truth" is an ongoing process which never ends, in science and elswhere. One is always moving closer, hopefully, but one rarely if ever arrives, accept temporarily. This process is even more difficult outside the lab, in society, or in the arts, like history, for example.

I did not try and make out that attempting to determine the truth is a Utopian dream. You said that, not me. That's your version. Typical of you, over and over. You simply invent views that I don't have, things I haven't written, "paraphrase" and try to label me. I don't like it. It's annoying. Isn't it enough that you disagree with something I have said, without inventing things I haven't said?

I said that passing laws to force people to adhere, or explicitly confrom to the "truth" whatever that really means, is useless, a Utopian dream. I was not referring to truth in a court of law!

There are different types of "truth" in different contexts. The "truth" that exists between people in society, isn't precisely the same as the truth in a court of law, or scientific truth, or historical truth, or truth in the media, or truth in advertising.

I didn't say we should give up and not try to at all to ascertain what the truth was, only that it was very difficult to find out and in certain fields impossible, in the sense of unknowable.

writeon
14 December 2008 at 23:56

Back to the front, sorry, I mean the point. Pilger is right about Obama. His "cynicism" is refreshing in a way, at least compared to the fawning, hagiography, which characterises most of what's written in the press.

But I suppose it's understandable, people want to believe, believe in something, anything. Something more, something better, some kind of hope. Even a false hope is apparently better than no hope at all.

Though I'd prefer it though if the people believed in themselves more and not the latest American messiah that's going to lead them towards the promissed land. But then this is what these guys do for a living. Increasingly they lead people towards unreality, and illusion, a facsimile of the world. The guys are princes of propaganda. Their always a sentimental, frightening and cloying mix of politician, military leader and high-priest. It's always a flippin' New Dawn and the Sun is rising over the horizon for a new morning in America! The holy slate of memory has been wiped clean again, so let's all join hands together and sing! Hallelujah! God praise America! Hallelujah! And pass the ammunition!

a.m.r.
15 December 2008 at 00:34

writeon, you said: "The idea that one can pass laws, or make it an explict requirement that individuals ahere or committ to the "truth" whatever that is, is ridiculous, an absurdity, a Utopian dream."

Witnesses in court are obliged by law to tell the truth. Legislating for truthful news reporting would be an extension of existing law.

Just as doctors have certain legal duties in the preservation of life and care of their patients, perhaps the role of the media is so important to national well-being that similar duties need to apply with respect to truthful reporting.

The main issue is the danger that the legislation would dampen press freedom through fear of prosecution, a possible censorship vector.

a.m.r.
15 December 2008 at 01:40

writeon: "I did not try and make out that attempting to determine the truth is a Utopian dream."

Well, you did say the following, in the context of our discussion about press accuracy:

"The search for the "Truth" is an ongoing process which never ends, in science and elswhere. One is always moving closer, hopefully, but one rarely if ever arrives, accept temporarily. This process is even more difficult outside the lab, in society, or in the arts, like history, for example. "

Carl Jones
15 December 2008 at 02:16

You should all read the link below,

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9824

writeon
15 December 2008 at 07:31

The is fruitless, tiresome stuff. You wrote that you agreed with Soros that we also need to make it explicit in law to make a requirement for a commitment to the truth.

That's what I thought was bizarre, that one could legislate for the truth. If you meant pass laws requiring journalists and the media to write the truth then you should have said so. This idea, in relation to the media is a pipe-dream. It's the function of the media, it's primary role not to tell the "truth" but to "lie" and present a picture of the world that represents the views of those who own, control and pay for the media. Given the size of the problem, one would need special courts designed to watch over the media, and the opportunities for abuse of such a system would be enormous.

writeon
15 December 2008 at 07:43

Carl,

Behind every great fortune there lies a great crime. I'm benning to think this is true about the entire capitalist system, more or less. That it's a massive, de facto, criminal conspiracy, that's become so much a part of our culture, so "natural" that the conspirators don't even need to meet or even know their members of a "conspiracy." It happens almost automatically without effort. Whilst individuals might be engaged in perfectly honest endevours within the system and not be criminals and obey the law, the system itself is corrupt and lawless and arguably always has been.

Optimist
15 December 2008 at 12:07

writeon,

Exactly where is the "great crime" lying behind the fortune of Sergey Brin, co-founder/creator of Google?

You seem to believe that nothing ever changes, or if it does, it will be for the worse, whereas the evidence is overwhelming that things do change and generally, over time, for the better.

A case in point - the U.S. electoral system, of which you are so cynical and dismissive. It has just produced a black immigrant's son whose middle name is Hussein, and made him president. Clearly the US electoral system is not a controlled static machine, otherwise there would be another white male in the White House. Clearly this is a change, and in my opinion, a change in and of itself for the better.

As for Pilger's rants against Obama - John's just working his angle, we've all got to make a living.

Another thing: instead of moaning on about Murdoch controlling the media, get yourself a web site and start blogging. You'll soon find out how many people agree with you or not. You might even become powerful in your own right! Just don't start a newspaper - they're yesterday's thing, they're going out of business left, right, or centre, and there's not much Murdoch or anybody else can do about it.

More change, and again, generally for the better.

(By the way, this conspiracy you write about - you know, the one in which nobody meets each other, to which nobody knows they belong, and for which nobody makes any effort to sustain - I have to say that sounds more like your own paranoid delusion than anything real.)

writeon
15 December 2008 at 19:03

Optimist,

Yes, I can see your point, I think.

The "Behind every great fortune..." comes from from Balzac. It can also be translated slightly differently, "The secret of great wealth with no obvious source is some foregotten crime, foregotten because it was done so neatly."

I thought I qualified the my use of it by using the word "think" in the following sentence, and using "more or less" and "conspiracy" in quotes. I didn't write that *all* great wealth comes from some crime. That would have been very stupid indeed, and I'm sure one could find masses of examples of fortunes not based on crime.

Come to think of it, that's what I did write! I was referring to the entire system of captialism being a form of crime or de facto "conspiracy." I, for example, have been very successful, moderately successful, and I haven't broken any laws. My ancestors got very rich off the backs of slaves and then virtual slaves in Manchester, but it was all perftectly legal, and as you say time moves on, there is progress.

I appriciate your views on Obama's successful campaign. It is an historic victory. Ten, twenty or thirty years ago his election would have been impossible. But then society was violently racist then and so many lives were blighted because of something as absurd as one's skin colour. It's positive to see that times have changed for the better. I do not think that time stands still. That would be absurd. But I'm sceptical that everything gets better, or that progress always has a linear and upward trajectory. I believe history can move "backwards" as well as "forwards."

Is Pilger really "ranting"? Is that how one normally uses this word? Is that really what characterises his style. I don't think he's just doing it for the money either. He could have chosen a different course in his career and earned far more money than he has, far easier, and with less grief.

writeon
15 December 2008 at 19:29

Optimist,

Pilger once opon a time used to write for the Daily Mirror and had an audience in the millions. He could have ended as an editor of a national daily, if he'd played his cards right. He was on that career path. Yet it wasn't to be. To be honest he's a pretty marginal figure today. He makes his films, writes books, but he really doesn't have a platform like he used to. One could argue that he's paid a heavy price for his "principles." I don't think I'd have bothered. I prefer a quite and comfortable life.

I have a website and I do blog and I get masses of hostility and the occasional angry death threat!

When I wrote about a de facto criminal "conspiracy" and that it was "natural" and a part of our culture, so much a part that we didn't even notice it or recognise it as a crime or a "conspiracy", I was thinking mostly about how we choose to define criminal activity in society. For example, my family, who some might consider loathsome criminals because they owned slaves, yet in their own time they were regarded as paragons and enlighened plantation owners. Perhaps in fifty years we'll look back on our own time and label contemporary businessmen as "criminals"? Times change and our attitudes.

What if your view about Obama is precisely the result his backers were aiming for? It's only as question. I was just wondering. After Bush, who was a disaster or brand American, a "radical" change was needed. A new, clean, face, not yet another old, rich, white guy. It's obvious the American people wanted a change and they apparently got what they wanted.

I'm just not sure they're going to get as much as they hoped and voted for, especially the young. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Already Obama and his appointees are modifying and changing their stances on a whole range of issues. Campaign rhetoric rarely translates into Presidential policies. I don't think this is being "cynical" it seems to me that this is how the system works. Perhaps I'm wrong.

writeon
15 December 2008 at 19:54

Pilger doesn't really irritate me very much. I often dislike his choice of words and phrases. His combatative style. But then he's pretty disgusted with lots of things. It's understandbale. He's seen so much senseless killing over the years, by the people who wear white hats and are supposed to be the good guys! And it seems to actually be getting worse. We seem to be attacking people all over the place, we've paid "them" who ever "they" are, a thousandfold for 9/11, surely that must be enough by now?

If one looks at the British press it's been incredibly pro-Obama. Amazinlgy glad to see the back of Bush who was an really hard sell. Obama is everyone's dream come true, finally one can be proud again to be pro-American!

So Pilger's an antidote to all that praise and fawning. He's not giving Obama a minutes rest. He wants Obama to present concrete policies, not just "platitudes" about change and hope, because there's no time to lose. There's so much to do!

I actually like the idea that there are a small handful of old buggers that simply refuse to go along with the flow and praise Obama to the heavens. Wouldn't it be incredibly boring if all British journalists were the same, more or less? I'm sure Obama won't be losing any sleep over Pilger's articles, after all he's got an empire to run and wars to fight, economies to save, and the whole world's in his hands, in his hands.

As I rather keen on justice, another difficult concept, I think it would be only fair to try to remember Pilger's "cynical" and sceptical attitude to Obama, and see if he turns out to be not as totally stupid, ignorant and wrong, as so many people think he is, if he turns out to be only half-wrong, maybe we will have learned something, but then again, probably not. Having a good memory seems a distinct disadvantage in today's world, a world that seems to continually start itself over and over again, like a well-oiled machine.

MaterialMonkee
16 December 2008 at 00:07

Hey WriteOn

Been reading your comments

my point regarding the whole "Choamsky the electoral system is a farce/real change can't happen thing"

Is that yeah Nader is a reasonable guy who is basically pretty much like a European social democrat.

But they don't vote for him

why not?

Because they don't want to

The Choamsky hypothesis is that we're brainwashed and don't have a choice

we have to vote for one of two candidates

but that's not true,

people can vote for Nader

people in the US now are a thousand time more informed than Brits were during the 1940's

and the electoral system is a hell of alot more inclusive than during that period

but our forefathers voted for a third party

who took the UK to an economic situation not far removed from Stalin's Russia and certainly to the left of almost any developed country today. When that resulted in stagflation

They then used the same democratic system to take it a hell of alot to the right.

The economic changes that happened by voter participation from say the days of

Lloyd George (very right)

to the days of Clement Atlee (very left)

the to the days of Blair (halway between the two)

must seriously discredit the notion that the electoral system can't instigate economic changes in society no?

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 01:32

MaterialMonkee , I hope you have better luck with persuading writon with evidence than I did.

writeon: "Voting, elections, parties, the unfree press, the seperation of powers, human rights - are part of an elaborate mechanism of obfuscation [ by the bourgeoisie to hide their Power]."

Okay.. after all, what other possible explanation could there be for Marx's theories and predictions appearing to be so comprehensively wrong about everything ?

I see, so the wicked bourgeoisie created some elaborate sham that looked like and worked like democracy and human rights and increasing standards of health and living in action, and then they hid behind this sham, hid with all the power. As long as they stayed invisible and effectless, they could rule forever.

But seriously, did you really have to include "human rights" as being part of "the elaborate mechanism of obfuscation"? Your analysis seems a bit militant to me.

writeon
16 December 2008 at 07:11

Materialmonkee,

I do actually appriciate your points and reasoning and I don't disagree violently disagree with you. But I do believe one can look at the same "evidence" or "data" or behaviour and see it from a different perspecitve or come to another conclusion. I was wondering or speculating if there was an alternative explanation for why Americans vote the way they do. Is it that they just vote for who they want to and they have a choice?

What made me sceptical is the real and measurable gap between what people say they want from politicians, how they think about soiciety, about policies, fairness and justice ect. as indicated by numerous opinion polls and how they vote. Americans seem to vote for politicians who don't conform to their views or really represent them politically or socially. Why is this? It seems paradoxical to me. Why don't voters vote for candidates that do, when one compares their stated programmes, are far closer to what Americans when asked, seem to want? What happens in the electoral campaigns to change people's minds? Is it because the campaigns don't have much to do with politics at all? Is it because the campaigns are really "beauty contests"?

Britain has never had a government close to Stalin's Russia or the very left. The Labour Party has always been a very middle-of-the-road "social democratic" party.

Chomsky has never argued that Americans were simply brainwashed and forced into voting for the main parties. It's far more subtle than that. There is a built-in bias in a market society that supports certain types of behaviour and attitudes to the exclusion of others, ideas that are termed "nutty" for example.

writeon
16 December 2008 at 07:30

a.m.r.

I am not a Marxist! He's to far to the "right" for me. But to be fair to Marx, he didn't make many "predictions" at all. He wasn't a vulgar determinist. Why people feel the need to make the guy sound really stupid, obviously stupid, is beyond me. Maybe because it's simpler to invent and deal with a "stupid" enenemy than a smart one? Neither was he comprehensively wrong about everything. What's almost unnerving is how accurate and detailed his analysis of the nature of the capitalist system, especially looking at how things are unfolding today, really was.

What characterises you a.m.r. is how little concrete "evidence" you in fact produce to bolster your arguments. There's a lot of theory not supported by real evidence, but perhaps you're using the word evidence in some other way?

"Human rights" is one of the weapons of obsfucation. This term or concept is defined in wildly different ways by different people, groups and countries. This, is surely, obvious, can one really contend otherwise? Who is correct? Is it so easy to define what exactly human rights are? For example, today there is a controversy over whether Israel is guilty of a massive vilolation of human rights in relation to the blockade of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli government would deny this infamy with vigour. They think, on the contrary, that it's actually the Palestinians who are violating Israeli human rights by bombarding Israeli civilians with rockets fired from Gaza. I mention this only in passing to show how controversial and complex the issue of human rights is. And such controverses are repeated again and again.

Human rights are used and abused by politicians of all pursuasions, and others, for political propaganda purposes. This is unfortunate, but accurate.

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 09:36

writeon, I like the way that you ignore MaterialMonkee's evidence that goes against your theory. And for you, as per your usual pattern, it's not evidence, it's "evidence". (and as you've said before, it's not democracy, it's "democracy". It's not press freedom, it's press "freedom". It's not human rights, its "human rights".).

re: human rights, I'm sure we were talking about the USA, not Gaza. Oh well. Too much evidence in the States that the human rights implemented there are for real for you to spin away , so I guess you had to look elsewhere.

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 09:55

writeon, you say I don't provide evidence (a word which again you place in quotation marks for no reason).

I pointed out Ron Paul as a US counter-example to your theory that v

writeon: "Human rights are used and abused by politicians of all pursuasions, and others, for political propaganda purposes. This is unfortunate, but accurate."

That's quite a climb-down from the statement you made in your earlier post, which is a more comprehensive and unqualified condemnation : "Voting, elections, parties, the unfree press, the seperation of powers, human rights - are part of an elaborate mechanism of obfuscation.".

You don't actually have the grace to admit that you've had to back down from your accusation, though.

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 10:03

Sorry, half-edited sentence in my last post, should be:

"I pointed out Ron Paul as a US counter-example to your theory that smaller parties do not have a chance. Small parties are small because they have a small amount of support."

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 10:13

Whilst we're on the subject of Chomsky, I recommend these links to anyone who's curious:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html (comprehensive collection)

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf (top 200 of Chomsky's published lies)

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 16:04

writeon: "I am not a Marxist! He's to far to the "right" for me. But to be fair to Marx, he didn't make many "predictions" at all. He wasn't a vulgar determinist."

Didn't Marx make a prediction that capitalism would fail due its own inherent flaws, and that there would be a proletariat revolution that would lead, via a period revolutionary terror and a dictatorship of the proleteriat, to a state of communism?

Isn't capitalism still here?

Didn't all the Marxist socialist revolutions turn out to be far more cruel and deadly than what they replaced?

Didn't they finally (re)embrace democracy and property rights for increased prosperity and freedom?

Wasn't his labour theory of value shown to be wrong? (at the very least in the simplistic form that he used).

Wasn't education made available to everyone under democratic market economies, unlike Marx's impression that it was capitalism denied it to the working class (no, it was actually the remnants of feudalism)?

“… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

- Karl Marx

“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”

- Karl Marx

“Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.”

- V. I. Lenin

“… when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism.”

- V. I. Lenin

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 16:14

(quotes above taken from Paul Bogdanor's website www.paulbogdanor.com)

writeon
16 December 2008 at 16:52

a.m.r.

The reason I put many of these terms in quotes is because I don't accept the way they are defined and used by many people. I think they are problematic. Like the words "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." I'm only indicating that I think these concepts are not as clear-cut and easily defined as one imagines.

Marx, wrote a lot of stuff. I don't agree with much of it. I'm not a Marxist. so I hope you'll excuse me if I don't get into a skermish with you over quotes. I honestly am not sure what they really "prove." It seems unfair as they are quotes from a time long gone. We don't really know the precise context they were made in. I seem to remember that Marx was particularly angered by the countrer-revolutionary "terror" as he saw it, that occured duging the revolutions of 1848 and during the supression of the Paris Commune.

I'm even less enamoured with Lenin than Marx.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe Marx was necessarily wrong about capitalisms future problems. I don't believe he was really making predictions in the sense or being a prophet. This would have been against the German materialist and rationalist tradition he came from. He did though seem to believe at one stage that capitalism was doomed, though later on, towards the end of his life, I seem to remember he modified this stance somewhat.

I'm not sure. I think the world's very complex and confusing, contradictory and paradoxical. I don't think I believe that "capitalism" exist anymore in the classic sense. I think the state is merging with the "market" and a new hybrid system is evolving. The "socialism" we see under construction in the United States isn't a temporary phenomenon. I think it's state capitalism of an interesting kind. So perhaps Marx was right after all and "capitalism" as he recognised it and defined it, is dead?

I'm not exactly sure what "evidence" you mean. I don't think an opinion, or an example, or an attitude, can be defined as evidence. I don't think Ron Pual is evidence.

writeon
16 December 2008 at 17:18

a.m.r.

I do feel that you are trying to force me into a corner and get me to defend positons that I don't actually have.

I think on sites like this one is, of necessity, using language in a fashion which I don't particularly like, and simplifying how one uses complcated concepts, which is why I use quotes so much I suppose.

You seem to ask me lots of questions. I don't think I ask you very many. Why is that I wonder? You seem so sure of both yourself and what kind of society we live in, how it works and what characterises it. You seem to have faith and a lot invested in it. I, on the other hand am very sceptitcal about it. I don't think it works the way it appears to do on the surface at all.

I don't believe the democractic process we can observe in the USA conforms to it's own professed standards. I don't believe it's as simple as parties get votes in direct proportion to their support among the electorate, or rather those who bother to vote. It puzzles me opinion poles show that Americans have core attitudes that are very similar to European Social Democrats, yet they vote for conservatives. This would appear to be irrational and contradictory behaviour.

Why do voters who are poor vote for parties run by very rich people? I think it's odd. I'm well-off and I would never dream of voting for them, even though they clearly look after my narrow, selfish, "class-interests" before those of the great mass of the people who aren't wealthy.

I don't believe the "playing field" in soiciety is level or just or neutral at all. The "game" is clearly "rigged" in favour of some and disadvantages others. It's an unjust system, as is the entire "market democracy" model. The market is manipulated and unfree and I believe there is masses of evidence that the political system is as well. I think this systemic manipulation of the "free market" and "market democracy" reinforce, compliment, support and create a kind of "culture of manipulation."

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 18:01

writeon, fair enough - perhaps I got the wrong impression. Maybe it's the fact that you rarely seem to acknowledge the progress that's been made under modern democracies,compared to the myriad doubts you express as to the essential reality of such progress. This, coupled with your use of marxist-type terminology, and your defense of Marx's record, maybe can lead to an an incorrect conclusion.

Also, was it necessary to compare me to a Nazi brownshirt and accuse me of having a totalitarian mind - you remarked this to Pencils whilst I was trying to counter his outrageous denial of state crimes carried out under Stalin and Mao - in fact the very post of Pencil's that you replied to contained the offending material, which really made me wonder where you stood. Clearly, at the time you felt it was better to attack me than defend the truth.

I don't think our aims our at all different, by the way.

I think most people would place the elimination of poverty and human suffering worldwide as the number one aim, but perhaps we differ in our approaches.

writeon
16 December 2008 at 21:12

a.m.r.

I don't actually think I directly or specifically named you or compared you personally, by name, to a brownshirt or a totalitarian. I think I was rather careful, if I remember correctly, not to do this.

I did however, in general, write about certain lines of thought or attitudes which I believe, can, when taken to extremes or their logical conclusions, lead towards forms of totalitarian thinking. You drew your own conclusions that I was deliberately and specifically referring to you, and I don't think I was. This is, of course, just my opinion, not to be confused with the "truth" sorry for the quotes! Never-the-less. I apologise if I have offended you. Meaningless battles don't get people anywhere.

I tend to defend positions I don't actually agree with, not because I think it's fun, but mainly because I enjoy looking at the world from different perspectives, trying to get my head inside the thinking of other people, like Marx or Adam Smith.

I feel the world really needs far more critical voices pointing out the problems or doubt they have about the system. I'm not sure this weakens the system. It may actually make it stronger. I've been extremely critical of this massive debt culture for many years, and I think this was necessary and justified, not that my efforts did any good. I believe it was right to be sceptical. I actually talked to a banker I know about an idea I had that banks should employ "fools" or "jesters" in prominent positions to ridicule the prestensions of bankers and bring them down to earth once in while. I thought this might have a positive effect, shock them out of "group-think" and perhaps force them to see themselves and their actions from a radically different perspective. He thought I was totally crazy. I replied that if it was good enough for kings it should be good enough for bankers!

I actually believe in concepts like, social justice, fairness, democracy, freedom, liberty and human rights, but I feel we need "equality" too.

writeon
16 December 2008 at 21:52

I am happy to acknowledge the progress made under modern democracies. I'm not denying, I'm not unaware of how much we have progressed in so many ways, especially materially.

But if I was a physician and somebody came to me and told me how well they were and how great it was to be alive, I'd be pleased for them but I'd also think they'ed wasted my time as I had lots of other patients that weren't so fortunate and needed my attention, people who were ill.

This may appear to be a negative attitude, but I think the problems we face, a possible/probable slide into another Great Depression require us to focus on what's, in my opinion, wrong with the system.

Just in theory, as an intellectual exercise, what if free market capitalism really was the root cause of our problems and it had evolved into a kind of Frankenstein's monster, with a will of its own that theatened its creator with destruction, would we really be able tackle the monster given its superhuman strength?

I think it would be a fantastic challenge, to change history, to change our culture and find an alternative mode of production.

A friend of mine mentioned to me that we in the rich West consume 32 times more resources and pump out 32 times more waste than people in poor countries. China alone, raised to our level, will double world consumtion. All the poor countries would raise it by 12 times, or 1,200 per cent. I just don't see how this is realistic or possible. We'd need extra planets from somewhere. That's the "monster" in the room, the monsterous challenge we and the "market" face, and, unfortunately, I'm not sure or convinced, there's an "easy" answer to this mighty conundrum.

a.m.r.
16 December 2008 at 23:50

To think I was half-expecting an apology.

writeon: "I don't actually think I directly or specifically named you or compared you personally, by name, to a brownshirt or a totalitarian. I think I was rather careful, if I remember correctly, not to do this."

I noticed that you didn't refer to me by name.

I was clearly the target.

Apart from the general obviousness to anyone who read the thread:

1) You mention the totalitarian's need to wipe out "non-truths", something that describes my efforts to disprove Pencils' and Nilsey105's denials of Soviet crimes in their last few posts.

2) You then mention the totalitarian quoting experts in the field of research, something that I had done in my last few posts.

3) You mention the totalitarian using the "trick of the 'paraphrase'" - I had explicitly paraphrased your recent exchange with Nilsey105 in my previous post but one.

That's three strikes - I think you're out.

writeon
17 December 2008 at 09:38

a.m.r.

But you have paraphrased, characterised and characatured comments I have made and, unfairly, labelled them Marxist or whatever, in my opinion. Yet if I do the same in return, "characature" your views and put them in an unflattering context, indicating that I think excessive faith in "truth" and the rightness of one's position, when carried to extremes, is dangerous and, once again, in my opinion, leads to "totalitarian" solutions; you take personal offence.

You appear not to want not so much an apology from me, but that I admit to you that I was, am, "wrong" and that you are "right." Would that satisfy you? I'm quite willing to apologise and admit that you aren't, in fact, a brownshirt and you're not a totalitarian. I believe you when you say you aren't. I am not a Marxist either.

writeon
17 December 2008 at 10:55

a.m.r.

Capitalism is collapsing around our ears. We are heading for the worst economic slump for decades, which I think could actually be far worse than the Great Depression and more difficult to get out of. This crisis of capitalism is going to have a profound effect on all of us, not so much me, as I'm very fortunate, protected by the system, it's "socialism" for me and to hell with everyone else; and you demand an apology for something I didn't actually apply to you personally, but only to aspects your ideas, which I believe could be seen as part of a "totalitarian mindset" something which you have accused me of on occasion. I think you need to lighten up, look around you and get some perspective.

PS. I'm sorry. I apologise. I was wrong. You are right. You always were; about everything.

a.m.r.
17 December 2008 at 11:43

writeon,

Firstly, you're admitting that you were referring to me - why did you lie earlier then by saying you weren't ?

The view I was expressing was not extreme - I was saying that the Communist famines in Russia and China were man-made, and that Stalinist-era crimes were significantly higher than the 'mere' 750,000 executions cited by Pencils.

For some reason, to you, this is a totalitarian view. For some reason, my citing of well-respected historical research to support my view is "excessive faith".

Let's see - who still holds to the view that the Communists were innocent of such crimes - why it's die-hard soviet-era communists and nutty genocide-deniers.

Please do keep your apology.

writeon
17 December 2008 at 14:15

a.m.r.

I wasn't referring specifically to you, only in general to what some of the ideas and language you expressed reminded me of, a mindset, if taken to extremes. The idea that one is Right to the exclusion of all other possibilities. At least that is the distinct impression I got. I did not admit that I was referring to you. I thought I did the opposite in fact! You don use words like "admit" and "evidence" as if I were on trial in the dock and you are the council for the prosecution. This isn't a trial situation in my opinion.

I am not, how do I make this crystal clear? I am not an admirer of Stalin or Mao. I don't support totalitarian communist regimes. This is bizarre in a way and ironic. When I was younger I was constantly involved in arguments with both extremists of both the left and right. I'm damn sure both Stalin and Mao would have packed me off to a camp without having to think about it for long.

I don't hold the view that the Communist regimes were innocent of crimes, there were so many of them, it's hard to know where to start! However, I'm not altogether convinced that the famines were totally man made, acts of deliberate genocide. I think this is a very emotive, political, horrific and controversial subject, which is unfortunately not unique to "Communism."

a.m.r.
17 December 2008 at 15:11

writeon, I wasn't referring to you as a denier of Communist crimes - I was referring to Pencils & Nilsey105.

I still don't see how I warranted a comparison with the fascists, given that I was trying to defend victims of a mass crime, who were being blamed by Nilsey for having caused their own deaths.

re: the famines being man-made

Well, I won't try and convince you. Perhaps have a look at the research that's been done : first-hand witness accounts from both the survivors and perpetrators of the actions that led to the famine, official archival records, and so on.

It's true that the U.N. does not (controversially) classify the Holodomor as delibarate genocide on Stalin's part, but even they classified it (with overwhelming evidence) as being man-made.

(Please note that there's no actual written evidence either, for example, that Hitler specifically gave the order for the elimination of the Jews - you know, as in a signed-off document. They still did it. It's still meticulously documented by the German record-keepers of the time).

As for Mao, a similar situation exists. The Chinese themselves have admitted that the famine had human causes (ie. enforced collectivisation ordered by Mao) and was not natural.

Mao was an avid student of history, including Soviet Russia's, of course. Do you think he was unaware that Stalin's enforced collectivisation of agriculture some twenty years before had led to huge famines? Do you think that it may have occured to him that the same could happen if he made the same decision? Is it possible that he may have desired this? After all, it's easier to make provisions for the poor after their numbers have been decimated. Was Mao the kind of person that might consider this - I'd say yes. Is there absolute proof? No.

“Working like this, with all these projects, half of China may well have to die. If not half, one-third, or one-tenth – 50 million – die. "

- Mao Zedong

“Deaths have benefits. They can fertilise the ground.”

- Mao Zedong

writeon
17 December 2008 at 15:30

a.m.r.

I promise to read up on the Ukranian famine. I've just finished a lot of work on the Irish famine and the famines that took place in India during the Raj. I'm not sure I can take much more.

I don't want to get too deeply inside Mao or Stalin's heads and their imaginations. There's been so much pointless suffering, bloodshed and destruction, that sometimes it feels that one is being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of innocent blood and gore.

I think Europe and the world would have been better off if the first world war hadn't occured. I think that unecessary war started a terrible landslide of horror that swept civilization aside and almost destroyed it. It's hard to imagine tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Mao being able to sieze power, without the virtual breakdown of society caused by the first world war.

antileft
22 December 2008 at 14:18

"I think Europe and the world would have been better off if the first world war hadn't occured."

No shit.

antileft
22 December 2008 at 15:53

"The reason I put many of these terms in quotes is because I don't accept the way they are defined and used by many people."

Stop piddling around with words- you always do that. Its not clever- its a waste of time. It forces everyone to debate english rather than the actual subject at hand.

"Marx, wrote a lot of stuff. I don't agree with much of it. I'm not a Marxist"

Dont you mean a "marxist"?! Why dont you tell us what you are? Without quotation marks- and without flimsy definitions. How much of the economy should be the state? Are you pro democracy or not? No word games, please.

barakeshi
23 December 2008 at 15:31

Barack Obama should not be looked on as a righteous black president like Mandela. He should be looked on as a president continuing in the footsteps of the former, war mongers and deceivers with unfair foreign policies and double standards. You fool the american public mate but on this side of the ocean we see right through you, you are just another puppet doing the filthy work on behalf of the "money family" Ameen

antileft
24 December 2008 at 01:49

"You fool the american public mate but on this side of the ocean we see right through you"

Oh come on now- obama is just as popular in europe as he is in america- if not more so.

fairplay
24 December 2008 at 02:39

"Oh come on now- obama is just as popular in europe as he is in america- if not more so."

only thanks to the MSM. once his cover is blown which is starting to happen now, people will see him for what he really is.

the US are welcome to him. the rest of the world doesnt deserve him

antileft
24 December 2008 at 06:26

Thanks to the MSM?! Who cares if its about the media or not- I was replying to this post:

"You fool the american public mate but on this side of the ocean we see right through you"

My point is- exactly as I said.

"Oh come on now- obama is just as popular in europe as he is in america- if not more so." Who cares about the media?! The fact is the fact which is that "on this side of the ocean" as the OP put it- the people DO NOT see through him.

barakeshi
26 December 2008 at 00:29

The OP is saying speaking for myself and many people I personally know (depends on which political environement you surrounded by), we do think we see through the man, thank you but speak for yourself...

antileft
27 December 2008 at 11:53

No he wasnt- he was speaking for people "over this side of the atlantic. Here's the quote:

"You fool the american public mate but on this side of the ocean we see right through you,"

And my point (which is correct), is that people "over this side of the ocean" DO NOT see right through him. See opinion poles.

Unless by "ocean" the OP means the florida straights, which seems unlikely!

antileft
27 December 2008 at 11:55

(Unlikely because the poor sods cant even use the internet. Viva la revolucion! *waves fist moronically*)