United States Politics Thread 47

[Raphael]

I don't think any of this has any relation whatsoever to reality, sorry.

Israel is not a US military outpost. If it was, there'd be significant US military bases there. There aren't.

This is true in the sense that the Shah of Iran wasn't American. "Israel" is just a word Americans say when referring to a certain segment of American military presence in the Levant.

Repeating things over and over again doesn't make them true.

Israel is not self-sufficient. It's nothing without American aid.

True in the long run, but then again, in the long run, we're all dead. In the short run, Israel would continue to exist for a few years if the aid would be cut off, which would make things a lot more complicated than they look like in your neat, frictionless simplifications.

No other faction is willing and able to send the same amount of aid to maintain a military presence in the region.

True now. There was a brief period in the early history of Israel when their main great power sponsor was apparently France rather than the US.

The US can't trust indigenous populations. The reason the US can trust Israelis is because they are settler colonials without good relationships with their neighbors. This atomization of peoples makes them dependent on foreign aid.

A few posts ago, you were telling me that Jews don't exist, there are only human beings. Now, suddenly, categories like "indigenous populations" and "settler colonials" make sense again? Very convenient.

What's too immoral for the CIA, regime change or Antisemitism?

Going after the political leadership of a country mainly run by people who, rightly or wrongly, are generally perceived as white Westerners.

Besides, CIA coups were, outside the fantasies of people with simplistic Us vs Them worldviews, mainly a 1950s to 1970s thing. During my lifetime, they focused their horrors on various non-state actors.

And, they're not a group of magicians. Their classic coups all involved the support of substantial parts of the local power structures in the targeted places.

Personally, I don't believe that humans have minds along the lines of a psyche as developed from Greek thought. What humans have is closer to behavior that can be described along the lines of Behave by Sapolsky (which I read again recently). Although I'm not a fundamentalist behaviorist either.

And you've just demonstrated the flaws and shortcomings of that outlook.

Those books are effectively a collage of press clippings. The alternative to imperfection you have chosen is that you don't actually know anything.

The fact that I don't see specific factors as all-determining in the way in which you see them as all-determining doesn't mean I don't know about these factors.

[Travis B.]

There is a reason why the markets have gone up just about every time peace has seemed close and there has been little pro-war propaganda -- business has not wanted this war, as it has meant expensive oil with little benefit for them (not all companies are Raytheon).

[rotting bones]

There is a reason why the markets have gone up just about every time peace has seemed close and there has been little pro-war propaganda -- business has not wanted this war, as it has meant expensive oil with little benefit for them (not all companies are Raytheon).

Business interests, taken as a whole, are self-contradictory.

[Raphael]

There is a reason why the markets have gone up just about every time peace has seemed close and there has been little pro-war propaganda -- business has not wanted this war, as it has meant expensive oil with little benefit for them (not all companies are Raytheon).

Business interests, taken as a whole, are self-contradictory.

First time today that I agree with you.

[rotting bones]

Repeating things over and over again doesn't make them true.

This is explained by the sentences that follow in that post, which you agree with.

True in the long run, but then again, in the long run, we're all dead. In the short run, Israel would continue to exist for a few years if the aid would be cut off, which would make things a lot more complicated than they look like in your neat, frictionless simplifications.

America won't cut off aid to Israel. I'll believe it when I see it. Apart from the reasons I've explained (which are backed by statements made by American politicians, not vague gestures at human psychology), Israel is the front American politicians use to launder taxpayer money. The aid sent from tax comes back to politicians as money they can use in their campaigns.

True now. There was a brief period in the early history of Israel when their main great power sponsor was apparently France rather than the US.

Just to be clear, this is a justification of the statements you dismissed at the beginning of your post.

The Soviet Union also helped during the early period. Like most nascent 20th century nationalisms outside Europe, Zionism once had a strong leftist angle too. (Chomsky seems to be a holdover from that period.)

A few posts ago, you were telling me that Jews don't exist, there are only human beings. Now, suddenly, categories like "indigenous populations" and "settler colonials" make sense again? Very convenient.

Jews don't exist, but indigenous populations do. The difference is one of social structure, which I already explained. I'd say more if I knew what's confusing in my explanation.

Going after the political leadership of a country mainly run by people who, rightly or wrongly, are generally perceived as white Westerners.

They have been promoting Zionist propaganda because it suits their interests. They'll promote Tucker Carlson if it comes to that. You don't understand Americans. The elites can be just as Antisemitic as white supremacist when their interests are threatened. If you want to know what they sound like, they sound exactly like Tucker Carlson. He's one of the American elites, as John Ganz explained in his book. (Personally, I've only seen a few stray clips. I don't recommend that anyone watch him.)

Besides, CIA coups were, outside the fantasies of people with simplistic Us vs Them worldviews, mainly a 1950s to 1970s thing. During my lifetime, they focused their horrors on various non-state actors.

That's what I meant by weak leadership. America being strong means imperial oppression.

And, they're not a group of magicians. Their classic coups all involved the support of substantial parts of the local power structures in the targeted places.

They were able to overthrow democratically elected leaders, which is all that will be required.

And you've just demonstrated the flaws and shortcomings of that outlook.

If so, you haven't explained any shortcomings. Saying something is a shortcoming isn't the same as showing that it is.

The fact that I don't see specific factors as all-determining in the way in which you see them as all-determining doesn't mean I don't know about these factors.

In that case, my complaint is that I have made a solid point about corporate profits. Your answer has been to dismiss my assumed metaphysics without argument.

I still recommend Chomsky's books on the military industrial complex. He's a structural analyst. He never complains about single villains in his books. That's a lie spread by his enemies. He does bring in a moral dimension, but that's typical of Anarchists.

[rotting bones]

There is a reason why the markets have gone up just about every time peace has seemed close and there has been little pro-war propaganda -- business has not wanted this war, as it has meant expensive oil with little benefit for them (not all companies are Raytheon).

Business interests, taken as a whole, are self-contradictory.

First time today that I agree with you.

Including computer science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

[bradrn]

Business interests, taken as a whole, are self-contradictory.

First time today that I agree with you.

Including computer science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

CS is the one field where I will agree that Chomsky had an unquestionably positive impact. (Though parser theory is only one subfield of CS.)

[rotting bones]

First time today that I agree with you.

Including computer science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

CS is the one field where I will agree that Chomsky had an unquestionably positive impact. (Though parser theory is only one subfield of CS.)

It's the basis of algorithmic complexity theory. Theoretical discussions in computer science is all about complexity. If he had a hand in the halting problem, theoretical computer science would be between 25-33% Chomsky.

The political books I mention are ~95% press clippings. The facts are so dense, they're difficult to read. The point of these books is to make Americans aware of what to protest in the doings of their government.

[Raphael]

America won't cut off aid to Israel. I'll believe it when I see it. Apart from the reasons I've explained (which are backed by statements made by American politicians, not vague gestures at human psychology),

The fact that American politicians say something doesn't make it true. Even the fact that people who otherwise hate each other's guts because they're on opposite sides of a genocidal war still agree that Israel is very important for the interests of the USA doesn't mean it's true.

Pro-Israel types addressing US and pro-US audiences have a motive to talk about how important Israel supposedly is for US interests. Pro-Palestinian types addressing anti-US or at least US-sceptical audiences have a motive to do the same. Doesn't make the claim true.

Israel is the front American politicians use to launder taxpayer money. The aid sent from tax comes back to politicians as money they can use in their campaigns.

I'll probably regret asking this, but what's the evidence for that? Sounds to me like a strained effort to force the square peg of actual US political behavior into the round hole of materialist theory.

True now. There was a brief period in the early history of Israel when their main great power sponsor was apparently France rather than the US.

Just to be clear, this is a justification of the statements you dismissed at the beginning of your post.

Which statements, and how so?

Jews don't exist, but indigenous populations do. The difference is one of social structure, which I already explained. I'd say more if I knew what's confusing in my explanation.

What's confusing - or perhaps not really confusing - is how, for you, subdivisions of human beings seem to exist when that's convenient for your arguments and not exist when that's convenient for your arguments.

That's what I meant by weak leadership. America being strong means imperial oppression.

Sorry, I missed when you were talking about weak leadership.

They were able to overthrow democratically elected leaders, which is all that will be required.

Ignoring my point, which was that their coups always involved support from significant parts of the local power structures.

If so, you haven't explained any shortcomings. Saying something is a shortcoming isn't the same as showing that it is.

Well, you've come up with an explanation for what people are doing that can, kind of, be made to fit the facts, but mainly thanks to a lot of squeezing and squinting. An explanation based on people's ideological, politically strategic, and psychological motivations can explain things in a much more straightforward and direct way.

I still recommend Chomsky's books on the military industrial complex. He's a structural analyst. He never complains about single villains in his books. That's a lie spread by his enemies.

Of course he doesn't explicitly say "I believe that there's a single villain." That's not how single villain ideologies work. But he still seems to trace everything he sees as bad back to one favorite target of his.

[Torco]

it coud be, let me google...
yup, israel has been attacking lebanon in the last 24 hours, it seems. probably some move to make the monday markets do this or the other thing.

I don't see how you get that idea. When they're doing simply what they've been doing for a while now, I'd say the most likely explanation is that they're doing simply what they've been doing for a while now.

sure, the point being this ceasefire will likely fall out as a result of israel continuing to do what it is they've been doing for a while now, as others have before. this begs the question why, then, would trump make a big fuss about the deal when the deal will be renegued on immediately? the answer, it seems -though who knows these things for sure- is market manipulation.

True in the long run, but then again, in the long run, we're all dead. In the short run, Israel would continue to exist for a few years if the aid would be cut off, which would make things a lot more complicated than they look like in your neat, frictionless simplifications.

America won't cut off aid to Israel. I'll believe it when I see it. Apart from the reasons I've explained (which are backed by statements made by American politicians, not vague gestures at human psychology), Israel is the front American politicians use to launder taxpayer money. The aid sent from tax comes back to politicians as money they can use in their campaigns.

i tend to agree. i don't really know how important the strategic or geopolitical thing is, US liberal and conservative politicians often seem almost religiously convinced that israel must be supported at all costs and to whatever extent. as the joke goes,

-mister president! 30 thousand people just died from poison in their water!
-that's terrible, send 30 billion dollars to israel.

[Raphael]

this begs the question why, then, would trump make a big fuss about the deal when the deal will be renegued on immediately? the answer, it seems -though who knows these things for sure- is market manipulation.

Probably plays a role. Then again, Trump isn't that bright, an actual deal would be convenient for him politically, and he probably believes that Israel will eventually do everything he tells them to do. So there's no reason to believe that he knows the deal will be reneged on immediately. He's many things, but a carefully calculating genius of canniness playing eleven-dimensional chess is not one of them.

[Raphael]

i don't really know how important the strategic or geopolitical thing is, US liberal and conservative politicians often seem almost religiously convinced that israel must be supported at all costs and to whatever extent.

Oh, that's simple: until very recently, they were simply pandering to their voters. In the last decades of the 20th century and the first decades of the 21st century, for a number of reasons that would take a while to explain, the vast majority of those US voters who bothered having an opinion about the matter supported Israel over the Palestinians. To such extent that not supporting Israel was seen as an "extreme" position. And politicians who wanted votes didn't want to be seen as "extreme" (the ones who opposed Israel even during those times usually either represented electoral districts with unusual political compositions or were so personally popular among their voters that they could afford disagreeing with them on some things).

People usually didn't acknowledge this stuff, because pro-Palestinian activists didn't want to admit that they had most people against them, and pro-Israel politicians didn't want to admit that their stance was about political opportunism instead of heartfelt principles.

Now, the good news is that Israel has done, and continues to do, everything it can to lose friends and alienate people, and that's starting to show results - public opinion has shifted dramatically in recent years. The problem is that as of now, the vast majority of US politicians are still people who have spent almost their entire career in the mental atmosphere I just described, and usually still have the mental habits they developed during that time. But that's mainly a matter of time.

And that, folks, is why I usually think of Israel as one of those characters in old cartoons who keep running through the air because they haven't noticed yet that there's no longer any ground beneath their feet.

[Torco]

this begs the question why, then, would trump make a big fuss about the deal when the deal will be renegued on immediately? the answer, it seems -though who knows these things for sure- is market manipulation.

Probably plays a role. Then again, Trump isn't that bright, an actual deal would be convenient for him politically, and he probably believes that Israel will eventually do everything he tells them to do. So there's no reason to believe that he knows the deal will be reneged on immediately. He's many things, but a carefully calculating genius of canniness playing eleven-dimensional chess is not one of them.

i don't know that it's a move that requires that much intelligence, though. announce peace, markets go up. israel keeps down what israel does, markets go down. but yeah, it could be not a matter of market manipulation but, rather, just being dumb. then again, at the risk of being malloc-ed, he is the most powerful person on the planet, so he could be at least somewhat not-dumb.

@Raph: hopefully you're right and eventually us support for israel dries up. this would be bad news for zionists, as it's unclear that israel can sustain itself sans us support.

[zompist]

True now. There was a brief period in the early history of Israel when their main great power sponsor was apparently France rather than the US.

The US supplies 69% of Israel's arms imports. Another 30% is supplied by Germany.

A number of other countries help out on a much smaller basis. One you might be interested in: India.

I still recommend Chomsky's books on the military industrial complex. He's a structural analyst. He never complains about single villains in his books. That's a lie spread by his enemies. He does bring in a moral dimension, but that's typical of Anarchists.

Chomsky's poltiical works are worth reading, though they're increasingly historical artifacts. E.g. Manufacturing Consent dates to 1988; it's certainly illuminating about the Vietnam War and the mindset that inspired it and other interventions. But he is not a guide to the transition from plutocracy to crony capitalism, not least because the dude is 97 and recently suffered a stroke.

He amasses clippings, yes, but people who've checked them say that his references often don't prove what he claims they do.

His biggest blindness has always been sympathizing too much with anyone anti-American, whatever their own crimes. As The Nation put is, he "has suffered fools, knaves, and hangers-on, both the curious and criminal, too lightly." As shown, for instance, in his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, who he said had been treated in "a horrible way" by the media.

(To clarify, the idea is not that Epstein was anti-American; it's that Chomsky was too naive about the company he kept.)

[rotting bones]

Raphael: What I mean by "truth" is taking facts, connecting them in a network of causes and testing the model to see if it has novel predictive power. To me, your post sounds like 100% denial. I don't understand the rational basis of anything you're saying, sorry.

I also think the "70's" bit is an exaggeration. Regime change continued against Iraq, Libya and now Iran. It did slow down somewhat after the Cold War.

The US supplies 69% of Israel's arms imports. Another 30% is supplied by Germany.

A number of other countries help out on a much smaller basis. One you might be interested in: India.

This is Raphael's post, not mine.

Chomsky's poltiical works are worth reading, though they're increasingly historical artifacts. E.g. Manufacturing Consent dates to 1988; it's certainly illuminating about the Vietnam War and the mindset that inspired it and other interventions. But he is not a guide to the transition from plutocracy to crony capitalism, not least because the dude is 97 and recently suffered a stroke.

I'm recommending him specifically as a guide to the military industrial complex and how it works.

He amasses clippings, yes, but people who've checked them say that his references often don't prove what he claims they do.

Can you give an example? His main claims seem basically correct. Chomsky does sometimes take the facts from press clippings and complain about their framing. He does this openly.

His biggest blindness has always been sympathizing too much with anyone anti-American, whatever their own crimes. As The Nation put is, he "has suffered fools, knaves, and hangers-on, both the curious and criminal, too lightly." As shown, for instance, in his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, who he said had been treated in "a horrible way" by the media.

(To clarify, the idea is not that Epstein was anti-American; it's that Chomsky was too naive about the company he kept.)

I don't fully support everything Chomsky says and does. I'm not even an Anarchist. I just think he's a source of information.

[zompist]

This is Raphael's post, not mine.

Sorry, I mishandled the quotation. I was responding to your statements like this:

"America won't cut off aid to Israel. I'll believe it when I see it. Apart from the reasons I've explained (which are backed by statements made by American politicians, not vague gestures at human psychology), Israel is the front American politicians use to launder taxpayer money."

I'm recommending him specifically as a guide to the military industrial complex and how it works.

A term and concept that go back to that noted Marxist agitator, Dwight Eisenhower.

He amasses clippings, yes, but people who've checked them say that his references often don't prove what he claims they do.

Can you give an example?

Yes, but you can find them yourself. My Chomsky books had to go during two moves last year, and I do not maintain an extensive library of New York Times articles to fact-check them. Others do, and you can easily find their critiques.

Obviously a lot of people angry with Chomsky are right-wingers or centrists. Critiques by enemies can be valuable— they often zero in on inconsistencies or misstatements that supporters gloss over— but you can disregard those if you like. There are plenty of leftist criticisms of Chomsky.

[rotting bones]

Sorry, I mishandled the quotation. I was responding to your statements like this:

"America won't cut off aid to Israel. I'll believe it when I see it. Apart from the reasons I've explained (which are backed by statements made by American politicians, not vague gestures at human psychology), Israel is the front American politicians use to launder taxpayer money."

In that case, my point about the sheer amount of aid stands.

It's not surprising that other countries in the Western coalition contribute some amount.

India is not surprising at all. It's a Nazi dystopia. On the Internet, Hindutva very loudly proclaims their love of the way Israel kills Muslims. The Chief Hitler of West Bengal has publicly announced that he will treat Muslims the same way Israel treats Palestinians.

A term and concept that go back to that noted Marxist agitator, Dwight Eisenhower.

Did Eisenhower write a book explaining how it all works?

Yes, but you can find them yourself. My Chomsky books had to go during two moves last year, and I do not maintain an extensive library of New York Times articles to fact-check them. Others do, and you can easily find their critiques.

Obviously a lot of people angry with Chomsky are right-wingers or centrists. Critiques by enemies can be valuable— they often zero in on inconsistencies or misstatements that supporters gloss over— but you can disregard those if you like. There are plenty of leftist criticisms of Chomsky.

I checked the main claims and they were more or less correct. When I Googled leftist criticism of Chomsky, the first few results I saw were: 1. Doesn't propose alternatives. 2. Loves free speech too much. 3. A Jewish man who has rediscovered his love for Israel.

I don't really want to find out what these people have to say.

I don't agree with everything Chomsky says in his political books, but nothing about his framing in the context of this discussion immediately leaps to mind.

[malloc]

Having given the issue some thought, I feel like Rotting Bones does have an interesting point about contemporary leftists as essentially conservative. Many leftists I know have a remarkably lapsarian conception of history. They emphasize what was lost in major historical transitions (agriculture, the Enlightenment, industrialization, and so forth) and seem downright skeptical of progress. While they aren't literally trying to revive the pre-industrial era, they definitely feel more at home in the Shire than in a glittering megacity or space colony.

[rotting bones]

Having given the issue some thought, I feel like Rotting Bones does have an interesting point about contemporary leftists as essentially conservative. Many leftists I know have a remarkably lapsarian conception of history. They emphasize what was lost in major historical transitions (agriculture, the Enlightenment, industrialization, and so forth) and seem downright skeptical of progress. While they aren't literally trying to revive the pre-industrial era, they definitely feel more at home in the Shire than in a glittering megacity or space colony.

Note that I also think music that's too fast can make it harder to be contemplative. Fast music has its place. It can shock you out of complacency, give rhythm to activity, etc, but I don't want to go into that now. Unlike Adorno, I don't demand that anyone else share these opinions. Fortunately, not many contemporary leftists are exactly like Adorno. This complaint about the contemporary left has mainly to do with the idea many have, that people should be rooted in their communities in terms of cultural practices instead of being cosmopolitan. In Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon, I understand the complaint that people emulate foreigners for no reason. But if you try to make leftism about policing behavior instead of enabling people to be who they want, the right can start to (falsely) seem freer. For example, blacks often look down on other blacks who don't speak AAVE. I know Muslims complain if female leaders don't wear a head covering, even when the leader is progressive. Sashi Tharoor mentions in his book that his parents sent him to Kerala because they were afraid he'll end up "deracinated", and so on.

What's the point of leftism if people can't even have basic personal freedom when it has nothing to do with fighting injustice?

[zompist]

Having given the issue some thought, I feel like Rotting Bones does have an interesting point about contemporary leftists as essentially conservative. Many leftists I know have a remarkably lapsarian conception of history. They emphasize what was lost in major historical transitions (agriculture, the Enlightenment, industrialization, and so forth) and seem downright skeptical of progress. While they aren't literally trying to revive the pre-industrial era, they definitely feel more at home in the Shire than in a glittering megacity or space colony.

Kind of, but also kind of not. Shouldn't we be skeptical of atomic bombs, AI, NFTs, polluting and climate-changing technologies, surveillance capitalism, agribusiness, and a host of other inventions? But of course I could also list a bunch of inventions leftists like, or social advances (like leftism itself).

There are definitely left-wingers who idealize rural life and hate cities. There's a lot of denial and wishful thinking in that. But anyone who commits to it and lives in a rural commune or whatever, good for them. It's not of much use to the rest of the world, however.

BTW, I completely agree with rb's response.