The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Are Americans Too Insouciant to Survive?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

When one looks at the deplorable state of the world, one cannot help but wonder at the insouciance of the American people. Where are they? Do they exist or are they a myth? Have they been put to sleep by an evil demon? Are they so lost in The Matrix that they cannot get out?

Ever since Clinton’s second term the US has been consistently acting internationally and domestically as a criminal, disregarding its own laws, international laws, the sovereignty of other countries, and the US Constitution. A worse criminal government has never existed. Yet, Americans remain subservient to the criminals that they have placed in power over themselves.

According to polls, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders are splitting the Democratic vote 50-50 as preferred Democratic presidential candidate. This is extraordinary.

Hillary Clinton represents the interests of Wall Street and the mega-banks, the Israel Lobby, and the interests of the military/security complex. These interests are totally opposed to the interests of the American people.

In his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank raised the question of why Amerians vote against their own interests? Why do Americans go to the voting both and do themselves in?

Whether you agree with Thomas Frank’s answer or not, Americans do, on a regular basis, harm themselves by voting for people who are agents of vested interests diametrically opposed to the interests of American citizens.

How is it possible, if Democrats are informed people, that half of them prefer Hillary Clinton? Between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hilary collected $153 million in speaking fees. The fees averaged $210,795 per speech. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/06/no-artful-smear-clintons-paid-153-million-speaking-fees-analysis-shows

I can remember when Bill and Hillary were in public office when their speeches were free. No one wanted to listen to them when the speeches were free. Clearly, Bill is being paid off for his past services to the powerful interest groups that control the United States, and Hillary is being paid off for her future service to the same groups.

How then is it possible that half of Democrats would prefer Hillary? Is it because she is a woman and women want a woman president more than they want their civil liberties, peace, and employment for themselves, their spouses and their children?

Or is it because, given the pressitute character of the American media, the people haven’t a clue?

If you vote for Hillary, you are voting for someone who has been paid off to the tune of $153 million by powerful vested interests who have no concern whatsoever for your interests. In addition, Hillary has the necessary campaign funds from the powerful interest groups for her presidential nomination campaign. As if this isn’t damning enough, Hugh Wharton writes that the National Democratic Committee is in league with Hillary to steal, if necessary, the nomination from Sanders and the voters. http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-superdelegates-just-screwed-over-bernie-sanders-and-spit-in-the-faces-of-voters/

In contrast, the interest groups who rule America are not contributing to Sanders.

Therefore, the choice of Sanders is obvious, but 50% of Democrats are too braindead to see it.

Although Hillary is a substantial threat to America, the threat of nuclear war is much greater, and the Democratic Obama regime in the hands of neoconservatives has just greatly amplified the threat of nuclear war.

The United States government, or perhaps we should say the exploiter and deceiver of the Amerian people, has announced a three-fold increase in its military presence on Russia’s borders. The excuse for this great boost in the profits and power of the US military-security complex is “Russian aggression.”

But there is no sign of this agression. So Washington and its servile presstitutes in the Western media make it up. They prolaim a lie.

“Russia invaded Ukraine” proclaims the propaganda. No mention is made of Washington’s coup in Ukraine that overthrew a democratically elected government and began a war against the Russian populations of eastern and southern Ukraine, former provinces of Russia added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet leaders. In the presstitute media, no mention is made of Washington’s intention of seizing Russia’s only warm water port in Crimea on the Black Sea. http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/02/us-control-over-crimea-aim-of-coup-in.html

Having created a nonexistant Russian invasion in place of the real US coup in Ukraine in the minds of the indoctrinated Americans, Washington now claims that Russia is going to invade the Baltics and Poland. Nothing could be further from the truth, but this lie from the Obama regime now determines that the US military presence on Russia’s borders will increase three-fold.

The escalation of the US/NATO threat on Russia’s borders forces a Russian response. Considering that the Russophobic governments in Poland and the Baltic States have unstable judgement, military buildups bring risks of miscalculations.

There is a limit to the level of threat that the Russian government can tolerate. The impotent Obama is in the firm grip of the neoconservatives and the military-security complex. The neoconservatives are motivated by their ideology of American world hegemony. The military-security complex is motivated by power and profit. These motives bring the United States and its vassals into conflict with Russia’s (and China’s) sovereign existence.

Within the councils of American foreign policy there is not sufficient weight to counter the neoconservative drive to war with Russia and China. In conventional war, the US is not a military match for the Russian/Chinese strategic alliance. Therefore, the war would be nuclear. The power of hydrogen bombs is immensely more powerful that the atomic bombs that the US dropped on Japan. Nuclear war means the end of life on earth.

Americans can know that democracy has failed them, because there is no check on the neoconservatives’ ability to foment war with Russia and China.

ORDER IT NOW

The neocons control the press, and the press portrays Russia as “an existential threat to the United States.” Once this fiction is drilled into the brains of Americans, it is child’s play for propagandists to create endless fears that deplete taxpayers of income in order to create profits for the military-security complex by relaunching the Cold War and an armaments race.

That is what is currently going on. The inability of Americans to realize that they are being taken into a conflict that benefits only the profits and power of the military-security complex and the ideology of a small group of crazies demonstrates the impotence of American democracy.

Universities and think tanks are replete with ambitious people who, chasing grants and influence, fuel the Russophobic hysteria. For example, on February 9 the Washington Post published an article by Michael Ignatieff, the Edward R. Murrow professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, and Leon Wieseltier, the Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The article is a complete misrepresentation of the facts in Syria and called for US measures that would result in military conflict with Russia. It was irresponsible for the Washington Post to publish the article, but the decision is consistent with the Post’s presstitute nature.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-era-of-us-abdication-on-syria-must-end/2016/02/09/55226716-ce96-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

The propaganda line maintained by the US government, the neoconservatives, the military/security complex, the presstitutes, and fiction-writers such as Ignatieff and Wieseltier is that Russia is not bombing the Islamic State jihadists who are attempting to overthrow the Syrian government in order to establish a jihadish state that would threaten the Middle East, Iran, and Russia herself. The official line is that the Russians are bombing the democratic “rebels” who are trying to overthrow
an alleged “brutal Syrian dictator.” The conflict that the US government started by sending ISIS to Syria to overthrow the Syrian government is blamed on the Russian and Syrian governments.

Ignatieff and Wieseltier say that the US has put its “moral standing” at risk by permitting the Russians to bomb and to starve innocent women and children, as if the US had any moral standing after destroying seven countries so far in the 21st century, producing millions of dead and displaced persons, many of whom are now overrunning Europe as refugees from Washington’s wars.

The recently retired head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael Flynn, has said that the Obama regime made a “willful decision” to support ISIS and use ISIS against the Assad government in Syria. That the violence in Syria originated in a US/ISIS conspiracy against Syria is ignored by Ignatieff and Wieseltier. Instead, they blame Russia despite the fact that it is Russia’s air support for the Syrian Army that has rolled back ISIS.

Where were Ignatieff and Wieseltier when Washington and its vassals destroyed Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, much of Pakistan, overthrew the first democratically elected government in Egypt, overthrew the government in Ukraine and started a war against the Russian population, and supplied Israel with the weapons and money to steal Palestine from the Palestinians? Where were they when Clinton destroyed Yugoslavia and Serbia? Where are they when ISIS murders Syrians and eats the livers of its executed victims?

It would be interesting to know who financed the professorship in Edward R. Murrow’s name and the fellowship in Isiah Berlin’s name and how these positions came to be staffed with their current occupants.

Reagan and Gorbachev brought the Cold War to an end. The George H.W. Bush administration supported the end of the Cold War and gave further guarantees to Russia. But Clinton attacked Serbia, a Russian ally and broke the agreement that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe to Russia’s border. When the neoconservatives’ plans to invade Syria and to attack Iran were frustrated by Russian diplomacy, the neocons turned on Russia with fury.

In 1961 President Eisenhower warned the American people of the threat posed by the military-security complex. That was 55 years ago. This complex is so strong today that it is able to divert massive taxpayer resources to its coffers while the living standard and economic prospects of the American people decline.

The military/security complex requires an enemy. When the Cold War ended, the “Muslim Threat” was created. This “threat” has now been superceded by the “Russian Threat,” which is much more useful in keeping Europe in line and in scaring people with prospective invasions and nuclear attacks that are far beyond the power and reach of jihadists.

Superpower America required a more dangerous enemy than a few lightly armed jihadists, so the “Russian threat” was created. To drive home the threat, Russia and her president are constantly demonized. The conclusion is unavoidable that the insouciant American people are being prepared for war.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election 
Hide 20 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Svigor says:

    When one looks at the deplorable state of the world, one cannot help but wonder at the insouciance of the American people. Where are they? Do they exist or are they a myth? Have they been put to sleep by an evil demon? Are they so lost in The Matrix that they cannot get out?

    I don’t think there is an American people. As time goes on, I suspect more and more that what you get when you amalgamate Britons, Germans, Italians, French, Poles, etc., in a new land is not an “American people,” but an un-people. An un-people unwilling to conceive of themselves as having a place, a country, a self-interest.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  2. Realist says:

    “Are Americans Too Insouciant to Survive?”

    Yes, and stupid to boot.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  3. Corvinus says:

    “Ever since Clinton’s second term the US has been consistently acting internationally and domestically as a criminal, disregarding its own laws, international laws, the sovereignty of other countries, and the US Constitution. A worse criminal government has never existed. Yet, Americans remain subservient to the criminals that they have placed in power over themselves.”

    This is EXACTLY why a number of Americans are “insouciance” when the left and the right make these grandiose statements, especially “a worse criminal government has never existed”. It’s an overblown generalization, one that make people generally shake their head and say “Here we go again”.

    In order to prove this hypothesis, you would have to operationally define “criminal government”, offer specific metrics, meticulously go through individually EVERY presidential administration to determine to what extent it was “criminal”, and then undergo a comparative analysis to rank them from most to least criminal.

    “Hillary Clinton represents the interests of Wall Street and the mega-banks, the Israel Lobby, and the interests of the military/security complex. These interests are totally opposed to the interests of the American people.”

    Of course she represents those interests; a number of her supporters who are American citizens also are on board. So it is observably false to say that the American people are totally opposed. Perhaps you meant to say “A majority of Americans, several of whom within the Democratic ranks, are oppose to those groups that support her campaign”.

She is no different than any other candidate running for office who has interests that citizens oppose.

    “Clearly, Bill is being paid off for his past services to the powerful interest groups that control the United States, and Hillary is being paid off for her future service to the same groups.”

    Yes, that’s how our political system unfortunately works, regardless of party.

    “The neocons control the press, and the press portrays Russia as “an existential threat to the United States.””

    I thought it was Joos who control the press. Are these Jooish neocons? I didn’t know Rupert Murdoch fit this description.

    • Replies: @Cameron
  4. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “I don’t think there is an American people. As time goes on, I suspect more and more that what you get when you amalgamate Britons, Germans, Italians, French, Poles, etc., in a new land is not an “American people,” but an un-people. An un-people unwilling to conceive of themselves as having a place, a country, a self-interest.”

    There is no observably such thing as an “un-people”. You just concocted a term. One need only refer to the Founding Fathers and the “American” people. Yet another one of your anti-humanity proclivities.

  5. Corvinus says:
    @Realist

    “Yes, and stupid to boot.”

    I thought white Americans generally have a high IQ. How can they be stupid in light of this fact? Are you anti-white?

    • Replies: @Realist
  6. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    We’ve been turned into citiZions.

  7. Cameron says:
    @Corvinus

    How many nits could a nitpicker pick if a nitpicker could pick nits?

    Many, many nits, it appears.

  8. Realist says:
    @Corvinus

    The mean white American IQ is a tad over 100. In no way is that considered high. And half have a lower IQ. In this country people are allowed to vote no matter how low their IQ.

    “Are you anti-white?”

    I am by no means anti-white. I am as white as they come. I am anti-stupid.

  9. Realist says:

    “Although Hillary is a substantial threat to America, the threat of nuclear war is much greater, and the Democratic Obama regime in the hands of neoconservatives has just greatly amplified the threat of nuclear war.”

    Every one running for office of the President of the US is a bellicose warmonger. That is true for both parties. All candidates with the exception of Trump are paid lackeys of powerful interest groups. And when elected will do the bidding of those groups.

    Democracies are the most corrupt form of government. When there is no voting restrictions on low IQ, stupidity prevails

  10. Realist says:

    “In contrast, the interest groups who rule America are not contributing to Sanders.”

    But they are contributing to the Republicans.

  11. The results in New Hampshire are hopeful but too little too late. Americans had it too good too long. They don’t know that politics matters. And they have been marinated in propaganda meaning they are misled. So they are complacent and ignorant. They will awaken when a critical number is cold and hungry. It will be too late of course. It’s too late now.

    The Empire is in steep decline. When it is gone in the same way the Soviet Union is gone there will be an opportunity to rebuild as Russia is doing now. Until then it will go from bad to worse.

  12. Jim says:

    Average world IQ is about 90. The average US white person is at something like the 75th-80th percentile of the world’s population.

    • Replies: @OutWest
  13. Corvinus says:

    “The mean white American IQ is a tad over 100. In no way is that considered high. And half have a lower IQ.”

    Is it because of nature or nurture?

    “In this country people are allowed to vote no matter how low their IQ.”
    “I am anti-stupid.”

    So, there ought to be a requisite IQ score in order for people to vote. That line of thought is anti-white, as it would take away the power and authority of whites.

    “Democracies are the most corrupt form of government.”

    Any and all forms of government are corrupt. It’s the citizens who engage in those nefarious activities.

    “All candidates with the exception of Trump are paid lackeys of powerful interest groups.”

    Trump also caters to powerful interest groups. Look at his track record.

    • Replies: @Realist
  14. Svigor says:

    How many nits could a nitpicker pick if a nitpicker could pick nits?

    Many, many nits, it appears.

    He’s a moron, and/or several bricks shy of a load.

  15. OutWest says:
    @Jim

    Universities are replete with people of high IQ. Common sense is something else though.
    Or perhaps they have their own agenda.

  16. Jeff Bezos, owner of WP: Jew

    Michael Ignatieff: Jew

    Leon Wieseltier: Jew

    I detect a non-random distribution (probability of random distribution, since Jews = 2% of the population, is c. 125,000::1)

  17. Realist says:
    @Corvinus

    If you are replying to my comments you should select ‘Reply’

    “Is it because of nature or nurture?”

    Mostly nature.

    “So, there ought to be a requisite IQ score in order for people to vote. That line of thought is anti-white, as it would take away the power and authority of whites.”

    Not at all. Whites on average have considerably higher IQ’s than the second and third largest population groups, blacks and Hispanics. The two groups with higher average IQ scores, east Asians and Jews have a rather low population density.

    By no means do I consider Trump a panacea.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  18. It has been over a hundred years since Bernays and others invented what they called Engineering Consent to sell soap. It has since morphed into what Chomsky calls Manufacturing Consent to sell fear and the Cold War. Read these terms as Propaganda and it helps us to understand why we are as we are.

  19. Good analysis.

    As for Ignatieff, he has been a cheerleader for what he called “Empire Lite,” in his view the beneficence of the neocon vision of American hegemony. As this vision soured among the American public, Ignatieff decamped to his native Canada and managed to secure the leadership of Canada’s version of the Democratic party, the Liberals. His leadership, by the party’s dismal performance, was thoroughly rejected in a Canadian federal election, in favor of a Conservative party which also hewed to an American neocon sensibility, under threat of economic border closure. At this time, though, the Liberal Party’s fortunes that Ignatieff squandered have recovered. The former Liberal Party Prime Minister Trudeau’s son has become Canada’s Prime Minister in yet another election. The earlier Trudeau was famous for his lack of deference towards American direction and it appears the Canadian public wanted the son to exercise the same independence. As for Ignatieff, he’s moved back to the U.S. as Mr. Roberts points out, unconvinced against his will of the neocon folly, and from his academic sinecure promoting the same opinions still.

  20. Corvinus says:
    @Realist

    “Not at all. Whites on average have considerably higher IQ’s than the second and third largest population groups, blacks and Hispanics”

    Irrelevant. If there is a IQ test for voting, with a minimum of 12o as the starting point, millions of white Americans will be ineligible to vote. That proposal is anti-white.

    “By no means do I consider Trump a panacea.”

    That wasn’t my point. While the other candidates receive contributions from special interest groups, Trump also caters to special interest groups. BOTH are equally beholden to them.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS