Building this post has been a challenge. Between faulty equipment that killed my internet and a computer that insists on crashing completely when I use the windows restore feature, and Bitchute’s strangeness, I’ve had a hard time finishing things I started. My Bitchute videos can take a long time to start to play and so when I’m checking that they’re okay, I am waiting forever. I’ve even had to re-upload vids to Bitchute because they hung forever and I couldn’t tell what the problem is. (And wouldn’t it be nice if we could embed Bitchute vids?) I don’t know whether that’s Bitchute or something else. Who am I going to talk to about that? There’s no one. (I’m subscribed to Bitchute’s Bitchute channel, to which I subscribed in the hope of getting info on the progress that Ray Vahey is making with Bitchute, but the last video to appear on that channel, as of this writing, was 9 months ago!) Ray is missing in action. Bitchute is already stagnating. They, or he, hasn’t even fixed Bitchute’s awful search feature. I don’t know all of the challenges that Ray’s facing, so I can’t blame him. (There’s a Bitchute video in which Ray discusses, with Dave Cullen, his efforts to create his substitute for Disqus. The funding organization he was using up and stabbed him in the back, stealing money from him in the process! Here’s my excerpt of that show: “Goodbye Disqus?”) But that doesn’t change the fact that Bitchute is, increasingly, missing in action. The baby is dying. (And it can be blocked by the State and its tools anytime and anywhere. It’s happened now a number of times. Things are bad. Cattle may disagree.) And I don’t want to enlist YouTube in my blogging activities because YouTube is the enemy. Google is utterly evil and censorious and if it hasn’t killed every non pro State voice or opinion that exists on one of its platforms (and WordPress has partnered with Google…), that doesn’t mean that those communications are safe, especially if those are anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-establishment communications.
In his article titled “In row with Omar, Tucker Carlson backs Trump, worships at US shrine of Exceptionalism,” Patrice Greanville (of The Greanville Post) writes:
At the end of the day, Tucker Carlson, whose gyrations may remain beyond our ken for a long time, perhaps forever, may be a victim of what RD Laing once called “The Divided Self”. Laing’s study, a probe into the nature of what we might call “functional mental illness”, saw psychosis not as a medical condition, but as an outcome of the ‘divided self’, “or the tension between the two personas within us: one our authentic, private identity, and the other the false, ‘sane’ self that we present to the world.”
The above makes sense when we observe Tucker endorsing, as we posited earlier, the very jingoist creed that makes constant interventions and warmongering inevitable. Which he is apparently obligated to oppose, when things appear to be getting way too far out of hand. In that sense, Tucker, like many conservatives, is also constantly at war with himself. His complaint against “the left” below is filled with the usual inventory of simplistic falsehoods found in the rightwing arsenal of vituperation, including the central deliberate error of confusing the center right (the Democrats) with the true left, whose message is rarely heard by more than 0.1% of the US population, as it has long been relegated to an informational ghetto.
I don’t know why Patrice quoted R.D. Laing. Without knowing that, I have to conclude that he finds Laing’s work to be, on balance, good. Wikipedia (which I don’t trust further than I can throw a piano) notes that “Inspired by the work of American psychotherapist Elizabeth Fehr, Laing began to develop a team offering “rebirthing workshops” in which one designated person chooses to re-experience the struggle of trying to break out of the birth canal represented by the remaining members of the group who surround him or her. Many former colleagues regarded him as a brilliant mind gone wrong but there were some who thought Laing was somewhat psychotic.” As a Christian, Were I in some sort of psychological distress, I personally would not feel right about putting myself in the care of any person who, or group that, did not share my basic beliefs, for one thing. For another, If your thinking results in the kind of therapy described above, I wouldn’t regard you as sound and would not, for that reason alone, turn to you for help if I felt that I needed psychological help from a therapist. But that’s me.
Putting that aside, I agree, mostly, with Patrice’s observations about Tucker Carlson and Conservatives generally. I would point out that R.D. Laing employs language that, without endorsing him and his methods of mind healing, people like Patrice and myself find useful to describe the behavior of Conservatives who we are looking at here.
Conservatives, who are rightwing, are not all the same. Some, I think, are confused. But I have a hard time excusing their support for warmongers while also denouncing war, when I can see that they are not brain damaged but are, in fact, highly intelligent and very informed. (Howard Zinn’s thoughts on the memory of States, a form of derangement, looked at below, helped me to understand the confusing, contradictory positions that Alexander Mercouris, editor-in-chief of The Duran, takes.) When Alexander Mercouris, who knows what’s going on in the world and usually offers analysis that is sound and productive, can claim that Donald Trump doesn’t want to do regime change, What is one to make of that? The video below shows Alexander making that claim. If you click on it, it will exit this blog and you’ll have to use your browser’s back button to return to it. Or you can right click and select ‘open in another tab’ and play it that way.
There’s definitely a divided person there. (People like James Corbett, who does great work by the way, often complain about the phony Left/Right narrative. When they do, they don’t specify, which isn’t helpful. But I’m guessing that what they are referring to is the pretend democracy that you see in the contest between the Republicans and the Democrats. You see that everywhere. Here in Canada, you have a New Democratic Party that is absolutely rightwing but pretends to be liberal and democratic. Yves Engler – who we will come to again in this post – does a good job of calling those fakers out. For example, he wrote “The “N” in NDP Now Stands for Neoliberal.”) The video below is an excerpt of an episode of The Corbett Report (“New World Next Year 2020!”) in which James talks about the way that Trump supporters, however reasonable or unreasonable, smart or dumb, can be unhinged when talking about Donald Trump. They’ve come up with a term to describe that phenomenon, namely ‘Trump derangement syndrome’.
In regard to the divided Conservative, What is the nature of that division? The Duran, incidentally, is a fine show and often features special (Duran Live) shows that include Peter Lavelle (who tends to hog the show). I am a regular viewer. But I am also regularly annoyed (not with every show, but often enough) by the contradictions I find there. (My Bitchute channel carries some excerpts from The Duran, Project Veritas and Dave Cullen’s Bitchute channel, that show how those rightwingers lack basic honesty when it comes to referring to the Left. I call that ‘Left derangement syndrome’.) Check out the video below in which you have an example of Alex using the term ‘neoliberal’ in The Duran’s own unique way. The reason for that could simply be ideological. Conservatives like Alex are highly ideological – while criticizing others for being that way, as they have done – and want to show that their brand of Conservatism is the only acceptable political position there is. The perverse way that Conservatives in The Duran use the word ‘neoliberal’ probably has the same motivation as when they make no effort to distinguish a real Left from a fake Left, thereby smearing the real Left (guilt by association) ‘and’ disappearing it, thus exhibitting the above-mentioned ‘Left derangement syndrome’. Someone listening only to The Duran, Dave Cullen or James O’Keefe would never consider looking into anything labelled “Left” or “leftwing” and rightly so.
‘Neoliberal’ refers not specifically to political parties that are called liberal or to liberal philosophy, which isn’t awful. (Those who self-identify, today, as ‘liberals’, simply betray liberal philosophy, which is essentially the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. Chris Hedges wrote an entire book about that. It’s titled “Death Of The Liberal Class.” It refers to that widespread betrayal. It does not argue that liberal philosophy is bad or good. But he does make the point that, before Liberals committed mass suicide, they were indispensable to the ruling class, more of a bad thing than a good thing. Again, Separate ‘liberals’ from ‘liberal philosophy’ there.) Neoliberalism refers to a social-economic system in which capitalists and transnationals are freed from almost all rules. The ‘liberal’ in neoliberal refers solely to that. With neoliberalism, capitalists (especially powerful ones) are ‘liberated’ from virtually all restraints.
“The ideology the think tanks promote is properly called neoliberalism, because, in contrast to libertarians who want a small, powerless state that leaves people alone, neo-liberals require a strong state that uses its power to create and enforce markets, and prop them up when they fail, as happened after the 2007-08 financial meltdown. Their utopian dream is a state governed by market transactions and not democratic practices. It’s based on the principle that economic freedom must come before political freedom. Political freedom may not even be necessary. It’s fair to say they believe in government, but not in democracy.” – Donald Gutstein, pg 12 of “Harperism – How Stephen Harper And His Think Tank Colleagues Have Transformed Canada”
“…Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a German-Jewish philosopher who fled Nazi Germany in 1938 developed a following of students and disciples, called variously Straussians and neo-conservatives, who achieved enormous influence in academia and government in recent years…
“Liberal secular society was untenable for Strauss, because it led to the “isms” – individualism, liberalism, and relativism – traits that encourage dissent, which in turn could weaken society’s ability to cope with external threats. What people need most, Strauss believed, are religion and perpetual war. Strauss regarded religion as a political tool intended for the masses, but not for the superior few. He agreed with Karl Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses, but, unlike Marx, believed that the people need their opium. Religion was necessary to provide society with moral order and stability. So Strauss’s neo-conservative followers allied themselves with the religious right to promote a traditional religious agenda. Neo-conservatives “encourage family values and the praise of older forms of family life, where women occupy themselves with children, cooking, and the church and men take on the burden of manliness,” ex-Straussian Anne Norton writes in her critique of Straussianism.
“Strauss taught further that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat. Following political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli, Strauss maintained that, if no external threat exists, one has to be manufactured.” – Donald Gutstein, pages 231 & 232 of “Harperism”
That political liberals are also neoliberals only means that they support that form of capitalism. If you’re not talking about that form of capitalism when you use the term ‘neoliberal’, then you’re not using the term correctly. Neoliberalism is not the same kind of thing as neoconservatism. One is a social-economic system, as I noted. The other is a philosophy. But neoliberalism is the complement of neoconservatism. If you’re a neoliberal, then you’re also a neoconservative. Neoconservatism, the philosophy, is basically exactly what the dark side in Star Wars is. We are all free to self-modify and to jettison our basic goodness, which despite inherited imperfection, we are all born with. It’s a free universe because those are Jehovah God’s qualities. We possess free moral agency, as does God. But we don’t possess a pass on consequences. ‘Neoconservatism’ means embracing inequality, deceit and violence. And the core of neoliberalism is inequality.
Donald Trump is a hearty neoconservative. He lies when he opens his mouth. He couldn’t wait to murder, in a grand way – a fantasy he clearly held as we saw when he bragged about how he was so popular that he could get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue – once becoming president and the corrupt OPCW gave him and his deranged associates, Democratic and Republican, the excuse to attack Syria in 2018. (When the neocons in charge of the American State want war, while calling it democracy, they will terrorize anyone, friend or foe, into going along with them. They are now even putting sanctions on allies when they feel that those allies are not sufficiently deferential to the rampaging American empire.) The following is from an interview that Aaron Mate conducted with Jonathan Steele:
“You’re talking about Bob Fairweather, who was the chef de cabinet at the OPCW, a high-ranking official there, and you’re describing the attempts by the whistleblower to have his samples…have the samples included and to have all the evidence weighed. And you write this:
“On July 4 there was another intervention. Bob Fairweather, the chef de cabinet, invited several members of the drafting team [from the OPCW] to his office. There they found three US officials who were cursorily introduced without making clear which US agencies they represented. The Americans told them emphatically that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack, and that the two cylinders found on the roof and upper floor of the building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors left Fairweather’s office, feeling that the invitation to the Americans to address them was unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality.”
“That’s from Jonathan Steele’s piece on this.”
Trump is utterly undemocratic. With Trump, it’s his (awful) way or the highway, and Trump’s ‘highway’ means having your country murdered. The self-modified (into ‘believers’ in deceit, violence and inequality) world goes along with him. Check out the video below in which a bloviating Trump rails against socialism (while he and his gangster friends enjoy socialism for the rich, aka State capitalism.) Initially, Trump’s audience reacts to Trump’s stupidity and brazeness with silence. Then they regain their composure and applaud his stupid, but neocon and pro American empire, statements.
This (from “The Afghanistan White Papers Are Establishment Whitewash BS” by James Corbett) is the American Empire that Trump presides over and which the above ruined audience supports:
Alexander cautions (“Duran Live E46” at 1:09:35) Western elites that if they persist in holding to mythologies (including the myth that Russia’s economy is small and Russia doesn’t matter), then they will disconnect from reality. But, he swallows some of that Western mythology himself. He buys and sells the myth that there was once an innocent Canada and that Lester Pearson was a good guy. Here’s a clip in which he essentially praises Lester Pearson and the Canada that ‘he’ represents.
Also, See my excerpt, about Dag Hammarskjöld, of Yyves Engler’s book titled “Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitation.”
Alexander Mercouris also talks about the deeply caring founding fathers of the US. He refers to a few of those individuals, including James Madison. Noam Chomsky (the pre imperialist Noam Chomsky) has a different take on Madison. See the videos, from The Duran and Noam Chomsky, below:
I’m guessing that Alexander Mercouris has read Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History Of The United States – 1492-2001.” He may have mentioned it in one of his shows in the past for all I know. I haven’t seen all of the many Duran shows. I’ve only been following The Duran for a short while. But Alexander Mercouris strikes me as the sort of commenter on history who prefers to dwell on and talk about the memory of States. He’s very good at that and not above, evidently, stating the plain truth (about Evo morales’s beneficial time as President of Bolivia or about the threat to the working class of neoliberal capitalism) in such a way (like Samuel Eliot Morison, who Zinn talks about on pages 7 & 8 of “A People’s History”) that we don’t get its import. In other words, he pooh poohs what should be central and makes what is superficial (like the contest between the Democrats and Republicans, and the US and Russia) out to be central. Keep that in mind. The following presents some lengthy excerpts from Zinn’s above book, the first being what follows, from pages 9 & 10:
“My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all) – that is still with us….”
Alexander Mercouris often talks, admiringly about Putin’s nuclear everything. Zinn continues…
“One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted more easily than when it comes from politicians at press conferences. It is therefore more deadly.
“The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks) – the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress – is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders. It is as if they, like Columbus, deserve universal acceptance, as if they – the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress…”
Which reminds me of Alexander Mercouris’s repeated assurances that Nancy Pelosi, whose awful behavior he also reports on, is a clever, professional person. Zinn continues…
“…the famous Justices of the Supreme Court – represent the nation as a whole. The pretense is that there really is such a thing as “the United States,” subject to occasional conflicts and quarrels, but fundamentally a community of people with common interests. It is as if there really is a “national interest’ represented in the Constitution, in territorial expansion, in the laws passed by Congress, the decisions of the courts, the development of capitalism, the culture of education and the mass media.
“History is the memory of states,” wrote Henry Kissinger in his first book, A World Restored, in which he proceeded to tell the history of nineteenth-century Europe from the viewpoint of the leaders of Austria and England, ignoring the millions who suffered from those statesmen’s policies. From his standpoint, the “peace” that Europe had before the French Revolution was “restored” by the diplomacy of a few national leaders. But for factory workers in England, farmers in France, colored people in Asia and Africa, women and children everywhere except in the upper classes, it was a world of conquest, violence, hunger, exploitation – a world not restored but disintegrated.
“My viewpoint, in telling the history of the United States, is different: that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations are not communities and never have been…”
On page 47, Zinn wrote:
“It seems quite clear that class lines hardened through the colonial period; the distinction between rich and poor became sharper. By 1700 there were fifty rich families in Virginia, with wealth equivalent to 50,000 pounds (a huge sum in those days), who lived off the labor of black slaves and white servants, owned the plantations, sat on the governor’s council, served as local magistrates. In Maryland, the settlers were ruled by a proprietor whose right of total control over the colony had been granted by the English King. Between 1650 and 1689 there were five revolts against the proprietor.
“In the Carolinas, the Fundamental Constitutions were written in the 1660s by John Locke, who is often considered the philosophical father of the Founding Fathers and the American system. Locke’s constitution set up a federal-type aristocracy, in which eight barons would own 40 percent of the colony’s land, and only a baron could be governor. When the crown took direct control of North Carolina, after a rebellion against the land arrangements, rich speculators seized half a million acres for themselves, monopolizing the good farming land near the coast. Poor people, desperate for land, squatted on bits of farmland and fought all through the pre-Revolutionary period against the landords’ attempts to collect rent.”
On the subject of the Constitution specifically, Zinn, in the above book, wrote on pages 90 & 91:
“To many Americans over the years, the Constitution drawn up in 1787 has seemed a work of genius put together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality. This view is stated, a bit extravagantly, by the historian George Bancroft, writing in the early nineteenth century:
The Constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality and individuality. It knows nothing of difference by descent, or opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political power of property. It leaves the individual alongside the individual… As the sea is made up of drops, American society is composed of separate, free, and constantly moving atoms, ever in reciprocal action… so that the institutions and laws of the country rise out of the masses of individual thought which, like the waters of the ocean, are rolling evermore.
“Another view of the Constitution was put forward early in the twentieth century by the historian Charles Beard (arousing anger and indignation, including a denunciatory editorial in the New York Times). He wrote in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution:
Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere representation of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.
“In short, Beard said, the rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates.
“Beard applied this general idea to the Constitution, by studying the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He found that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of them had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty-five held government bonds, according to the records of the Treasury Department.
“Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.
“Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups.
“He wanted to make it clear that he did not think the Constitution was written merely to benefit the Founding Fathers personally, although one could not ignore the $150,000 fortune of Benjamin Franklin, the connections of Alexander Hamilton to wealthy interests through his father-in-law and brother-in-law, the great slave plantations of James Madison, the enormous landholdings of George Washington. Rather, it was to benefit the groups the Founders represented, the “economic interests they understood and felt in concrete, definite form through their own personal experience.”
“Not everyone at the Philadelphia Convention fitted Beard’s scheme. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was a holder of landed property, and yet he opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Similarly, Luther Martin of Maryland, whose ancestors had obtained large tracts of land in New Jersey, opposed ratification. But, with a few exceptions, Beard found a strong connection between wealth and support of the Constitution.
“By 1778 there was not only a positive need for strong central government to protect the large economic interests, but also immediate fear of rebellion by discontented farmers. The chief event causing this fear was an uprising in the summer of 1786 in western Massachusetts, known as Shay’s Rebellion.”
Consider the following excerpts of Yves Engler’s book titled “The Truth May Hurt – Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping.”
“The struggle between fascism and liberal democracy was forcefully thrust upon the world stage in Spain. A left-wing coalition government won office there in 1936. The church, landed gentry and big business immediately looked to overthrow the Republican government with the help of General Francisco Franco, commander of Spain’s overseas military. Hitler’s Germany, Fascist Portugal and Mussolini’s Italy sent large quantities of weapons and tens of thousands of troops to support Franco. With major British economic interests in that country, Canada effectively sided with the Fascists during the Spanish Civil War. Supposedly neutral Ottawa refused repeated requests from Spain’s elected government to sell it weaponry and outlawed recruiting Canadians to fight against the rising tide of fascism.
“Hitler and Mussolini were emboldened by their victory in Spain, which could have been averted if Canada, Britain and other leading capitalist countries had backed the Republican forces. A different outcome in Spain may have saved Europe from the incredible destruction of World War II, which probably embarrassed Pearson. This could be why Mike largely ignored the Spanish Civil War in his three volume Memoirs despite having been close to the action as a diplomat in England.”
From page 26 of “The Truth May Hurt,” we get the following:
“In a 1948 speech titled “Communism – the myth and reality” Pearson said the USSR was an “oppressor on a scale surpassing even Nazi Germany.” He argued that the conflict between East and West was “spiritual” because “the crusading and subversive power of communism has been harnessed by a cold-blooded, calculating, victoriously powerful Slav empire.”
“During his nine years as External Affairs Minister, Pearson repeatedly decried “communist imperialism” and “the international communist conspiracy in the House of Commons…”
For which reason one can see why JFK, a terrorist, would have wanted to help get Pearson elected as prime minister, which happened. Engler continues…
“Before the House in early 1957 he referred to the “greatest colonial power of all and the one which exercises power in the most arbitrary and tyrannical fashion, the Soviet Union.”
“Canada’s contribution to the Cold War included the Canadian Psychological Warfare Committee, which continued after World War Two ended. As part of the Psychological Warfare Committee, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s International Service beamed Canadian information to the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries. In a 1951 speech to Parliament Pearson said CBC-IS was “playing a useful part in the psychological war against communism.” Viewing it as a “necessity” for government departments to have a “close liaison with the CBC international service”, on July 1, 1952 Mike launched a Ukrainian section of CBC-IS.
“Established in 1949, NATO contributed to Cold War hysteria. Some believe that NATO was a Canadian idea. Pearson began thinking about a formal western military alliance in 1946 and he laid out some of his thoughts on the topic in a June 1947 speech at the University of Rochester. A few weeks later his assistant, Escott Reid, spoke (with Undersecretary Pearson’s foreknowledge) in support “of collective self-defense against armed attack until the Security Council has acted.” In September of that year External Affairs Minister Louis St Laurent told the UN General Assembly that if the Security Council remained “frozen in futility and divided by dissension” certain countries would “seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace loving states willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for a greater measure of national security.” Pearson largely wrote this “first public proposal by a cabinet minister in the Atlantic area for an alliance for that region.” In March 1948 Undersecretary Pearson represented Canada at top-secret talks with Britain and the US on the possibility of creating a North Atlantic alliance. He was also asked to be NATO’s first secretary general.
“Pearson wholeheartedly supported NATO. In his Memoirs he described the “formation of NATO” as the “most important thing I participated in”. Canada and NATO explains: “There would not again be, in Canada, the enthusiasm for the North Atlantic alliance there was in that close to 9 years that Louis St. Laurent stood behind it as the country’s Prime Minister, and Lester Pearson as its Secretary of State for External Affairs.”
“Pearson was not above red-baiting those who criticized NATO policy. When the Co-operative Commonweath Federation (CCF) opposed a massive build-up of NATO troops in Europe in 1953, he claimed “the CCF seems to be moving towards that [Russian] position.” Pearson said the social democratic party’s propaganda would “play straight into the hands of communist propaganda” and “that is exactly how the Kremlin would describe them.””
From pages 40-45 of “The Truth May Hurt” we get the following:
“Far from being an “honest broker”, a representative from the Canadian Arab Friendship League explained: “Our Canadian government at one time also favored the creation of a federated State of Palestine which has at least some resemblance to a democratic solution… Mr. Lester Pearson and Mr. Justice Ivan C. Rand changed that official position of our government. Instead of the democratic solution, these gentlemen did their utmost to impose upon the Arabs the infamous partition scheme. The Arab world, I’m sure, will remember them.”
“More practically, Israel’s creation lessened the pressure on a widely anti-Semitic Ottawa to accept post-World War II Jewish refugees. At the end of the war the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) was supposed to help resettle a couple hundred thousand displaced European Jews. When he was ambassador in Washington Pearson represented Canada at a number of UNRRA meetings where he faithfully defended the government’s position against Jewish immigration. After a meeting to discuss European refugees was moved from Ottawa to Bermuda, None is Too Many [a book co-authored by the Canadian historians Irving Abella and Harold Troper] notes, “[Ambassador] Pearson exultingly wired [Undersecretary Norman] Robertson that the pressure was off and that, ‘in the circumstances,’ Ottawa was no longer ‘a possibility’ [to host the meeting]. And, he added, of even greater importance, Canada would not even be asked to take part in the conference. ” Pearson believed sending Jewish refugees to Palestine was the only sensible solution to their plight.
“But the refugee issue was less of a concern than US-British relations. In 1947 Pearson was concerned with Anglo-American disunity over Palestine, more than the Palestinian crisis itself. “I wasn’t thinking of trouble in terms of a war in Palestine,” he explained. “I was thinking of trouble in terms of a grave difference of opinion between London and Washington. That always gives a Canadian nightmares, of course.” Pearson worried that disagreement between Washington and London over Palestine could adversely affect the US-British alliance and the emerging north Atlantic alliance.
“Above all else, the ambitious diplomat wanted to align himself and Canada with Washington, the world’s emerging hegemon. “Pearson usually coordinated his moves with the Americans,” one book on Canada’s role in the partition negotiations explained. To determine their position on the UN Ad Hoc Committee, for instance, Canada’s delegation “found it especially important to know the American’s position.” A member of the Canadian delegation explained: “[we] will have nothing to say until after the United States has spoken.” Of central importance to Canadian support for partition was the belief that a Middle Eastern Jewish state would serve Western interests. An internal report circulated at External Affairs during the UN negotiations explained: “The plan of partition gives to the western powers the opportunity to establish an independent, progressive Jewish state in the Eastern Mediterranean with close economic and cultural ties with the West generally and in particular with the United States.”
In other words, Israel would be ‘dependent’, seeking expansion as opposed to security, while serving as a US military base, essentially.
“In a 1952 memo to cabinet Pearson repeated this thinking. “With the whole Arab world in a state of internal unrest [after the overthrow of the British-backed monarchy in Egypt] and in the grip of mounting anti-western hysteria, Israel is beginning to emerge as the only stable element in the whole Middle East area.” He went on to explain how “Israel may assume an important role in Western defence as the southern pivot of current plans for the defence” of the eastern Mediterranean. Pearson supported Israel as a possible western ally in the heart of the (oil-producing) Middle East. Two decades later he referred to that country as “an outpost, if you will, of the West in the Middle East.” Politically, culturally and economically dependent on North America and Europe, Israel was seen as a dependable Western imperial outpost.
“On the Cold War, NATO and the creation of Israel, Pearson was clearly more concerned about siding with the emerging US empire than in following the principles enunciated in the UN Charter. This pattern continued throughout his career.”
And finally, from page 60 of the same book by Engler, we get the following:
“Six months after the US intervened in the Korean civil war the UN voted to brand China an aggressor in the conflict. Yet Beijing only sent forces into Korea after hundreds of thousands of hostile troops approached its border. From the Chinese perspective the People’s Liberation Army defended the country’s territorial integrity, which was compromised by US bombings and the control of Formosa by foreign backed forces. Secretary of Cabinet Robertson and acting External Affairs Undersecretary Escott Reid lobbied Pearson to vote against the UN motion describing China as an aggressor. The minister responded: “Norman, you have no idea what the pressure is like down here [at the UN in New York]. I can’t.” In his Memoirs Pearson explained: “We were faced with great American pressure to support the resolution of condemnation [of China]. We succumbed to that pressure.” But, Pearson also justified the UN resolution. “I said that we would support the US resolution because we could not deny the fact that Chinese forces were participating in aggression.” His other reason for voting to condemn China’s role in Korea was Washington’s benevolent foreign policy. “Our support for this resolution”, Pearson declared, “was easier for us in view of the fact that it had been submitted by the United States, which was taking the leadership ‘in the defense of freedom everywhere’.” (A few years later he made an even more absurd statement, claiming “it is inconceivable to Canadians, it is inconceivable certainly to me, that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive war.”
Politicians – gangsters – say the most incredible things!
Also, in their show titled “Michael Flynn case unvravels. US-UK Deep State entrapment plan exposed,” Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou made a big deal about how ‘Mr Righteous’, Michael Flynn, was entrapped by lawless FBI officials, including Peter Strzok (whose girlfriend editted – doctored – the record of Flynn’s open, not encrypted, phone conversation with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak) while ignoring William Barr’s proposed pre crime program. That’s interesting. It reminds me of a recent Duran show in which Alexander and Alex talk about Russia’s version of America’s FARA, which stands for Foreign Agents Registration Act. They characterize the American FARA as having as its main target Russia and they characterize Russia’s version of FARA as being necessary and due to continuing efforts by the West, led by the US, to undermine Russia, all of which I agree with. (They also completely ignored the fact that Russia has also passed a law against criticizing the Russian State [a fact that I would like to confirm and will correct if I’m wrong about it] and is not above shutting down its internet in order to quell dissent, which I would have thought quite related subjects for this particular show and worth mentioning. If you want to point to evidence that Putin isn’t a dictator, fine. But don’t ignore evidence that he’s not entirely democratic, if you want to be fair. What those Conservatives do with their pro Trump reportage, which, ultimately, is not accurate due to their extreme pro Trump bias, they do here as well, due to their pro Russian bias, all in accordance with their version of Conservatism (which just doesn’t work).
“Amid a global upsurge of political protests and strikes, governments all over the world are shutting down the internet in desperate bids to stem the tide of popular opposition.
“According to preliminary data from Access Now, 2019 likely saw more deliberate internet shutdowns than any other previous year. More than a quarter of the world’s countries have shut down the internet in the past four years.
“At least 29 countries carried out deliberate internet shutdowns in 2019, including India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Sudan, Indonesia and Iraq.” – from the article titled “Desperate to stem protests, dozens of governments shut down internet access in 2019” by Andre Damon (WSWS)
The bolding in the above quote is mine.
Flynn participated, for five years, in the huge crime of invading and destroying both Afghanistan and Iraq, but just ignore that. Wikipedia says about Flynn: “Flynn’s military career included a key role in shaping U.S. counterterrorism strategy and dismantling insurgent networks in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he was given numerous combat arms, conventional, and special operations senior intelligence assignments.” (Insurgents are those resisting an American invasion of their country. Counterinsurgency means State terrorism. See my blog post titled “Thinking About Thinking” in which such terms and practices are discussed.) If you didn’t view the above video excerpt of James Corbett’s show about the price others have to pay for neocons’ freedom to fulfill their violent fantasies, now would be a good time to do so.
“AG William Barr Formally Announces Orwellian Pre-Crime Program” by Whitney Webb (Mint Press News)
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
“Last Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General William Barr issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys, law enforcement agencies and top ranking Justice Department officials announcing the imminent implementation of a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting potential mass shooters before they commit any crime…
“However, the memorandum differentiates suspected terrorists from the individuals this new program is set to pursue. Barr states that, unlike many historical terrorism cases, “many of today’s public safety threats appear abruptly and with sometimes only ambiguous indications of intent” and that many of these individuals “exhibit symptoms of mental illness and/or have substance abuse problems.”
“Thus, the goal of the program is ostensibly to circumvent these issues by finding new and likely controversial ways to determine intent. As will be shown later in this report, Barr’s recent actions suggest that the way this will be accomplished is through increased mass surveillance of everyday Americans and the use of algorithms to analyze that bulk data for vaguely defined symptoms of “mental illness.”
“The memorandum, despite heralding a new era of Orwellian surveillance and “pre-crime” on a national level, has been sparsely covered by the mainstream media. One of the few reports that did cover the new Justice Department policy, published Wednesday by the Huffington Post, framed the new Barr-led initiative as largely positive and asserted that the “anti-terror tactics” to which Barr alluded could “help thwart mass shooters.” No mention was made in the piece of the threat such a program is likely to pose to civil liberties.
“Furthermore, no mention was made of Barr’s clear push over the past few months to lay the groundwork for this recently announced program. Indeed, since becoming Attorney General under President Trump, Barr has spearheaded numerous efforts to this end, including pushing for a government backdoor into consumer apps or devices that utilize encryption and for a dramatic increase of long-standing yet controversial warrantless electronic surveillance programs.”