Here’s the conversation:
The intention was not to minimize the Treaty of Versailles. It was to point toward how the US is on track to being a smoking ruin, and the CwA’s role in creating an environment where a smoking ruin seems to be the point.
7 Likes
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that’s pretty much my point in my original comment. We’re on the precipice, but we aren’t there yet. Being one foot on one side or the other of the edge of a mile high cliff is a meaningful difference, and I think it’s more than semantics to dispute that we’re there yet.
I agree, as well, that we’re one crisis away from our system of government going away for most intents and purposes. I think we’re agreed there there’s no chance in hell that our republic as we know it would survive another 9/11.
10 Likes
Mmm that seems a little too Alex Jonsey to me.
That’s because the left is cheating and has the unfair advantage of […insert.excuse.here…] and that justifies everything they do to counteract it.
2 Likes
That went completely the other way. The GOP is all Teabags, now.
13 Likes
I hope you’re right. All I can think is the WMDs that WERE ABSOLUTELY in Iraq (except they really weren’t) and the years and years of war that generated. And that was under a Presidency less obviously evil than this one.
16 Likes
But to be fair, in 1933 it had only been a democracy for 15 years or so. I’d hope American democracy has deeper roots.
4 Likes
You all know the expression ‘divide and conquer’? I suspect that if you find yourself on either side of the divide, you’re not part of the group doing the conquering. Might want to look around and figure out who is.
3 Likes
I feel that way especially because I’ve seen what Trump has brought to the table. I can’t see how centrists are going to stop him and his ilk no matter the letter next to their names, and they might actually help him, even if inadvertently. I’d rather not take the risk.
1 Like
Actually this time I kinda agree with his conclusion, but just can’t get with his methods.
1 Like
As often as not, a dictatorship happens when a minority (group, viewpoint, cultural group, whatever) seizes power to exert control over the majority.* To state the obvious, you don’t need a dictatorship if the majority is on your side (usually).
Right now we see the seeds of just that. The numerical minority - trumpian republicans, so-called alienated whites, the poor flyover states that are collapsing while the coasts and cities are (relatively) thriving. Right there you have a ripe ground for blackshirt recruitment - alienated angry people in an economic catastrophe.
Given that their man is currently in power, and the distortions of the Senate mean that they have fairly strong control of that body as well, and that their man is highly unlikely to recognize or respect the results of any election he does not win…**
*Yes, sometimes a dictatorship involves the majority oppressing the minorities (Iran, Nazi era Germany), but there are abundant examples of the opposite - Apartheid, Syria, Baathist Iraq, Egypt all come to mind. There are many others.
**Given the distorted design of the Senate, even if there is a D majority, many of those Ds will be so-called ‘moderates’ and vote against the interest of the majority of the population.
3 Likes
One of the first things Obama did when the right took over both houses of Congress was to offer a freeze on federal government workers’ pay. That did nothing, except piss off government workers for the next three years of no COLA.
— ex-FedGov researcher
9 Likes
Modeeate Democrats are whatever Republicans were ten years earlier.
3 Likes
Yeah, fascinating stuff, very heavy. But can we talk about the really important stuff now?
That tie is everything.
1 Like
I was thinking more in terms of Daniel Boorstin and Guy Debord and Jean Baudrillard. But I do acknowledge that those who might consider any manufactured event to be the result of a shadowy conspiracy might also not be familiar with those names.
7 Likes
I would note that it wasn’t that long ago where many parts of the country were under authoritarian one-party apartheid rule complete with government supported terrorist death squads that murdered troublemakers.
5 Likes
Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain! (which had nothing to do with it blowing up)
We definitely had to go to war with North Vietnam after it attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (except that didn’t happen).
Just… ignore the FBI’s “Cointelpro” campaign. Obviously it never existed (except it did).
Shoot, we don’t even have to get into denying fascist operations like the Reichstag fire…
It would be a bit ironic to use that argument with the Iraq War, given that it’s still going on. (Not that it would stop some people, I suppose…)
6 Likes
I think not enough people know how the USSR fell.
They had their equivalent of a constitutional convention - they were going to delegate a lot of powers to the states.
(This was prompted by “glasnost” - opening up of information that highlighted stalin’s atrocities. Kind of like how the net opens us up to all the shit the CIA has pulled)
The military didn’t like this and attempted a coup. (The coup failed.)
Would the coup fail if they had the access the NSA has? If they could run facial recognition and pick the leaders off at night? Generate a list of addresses of people who’d “liked” perstroika?
2 Likes
I would sincerly like to know how to compromise with people whose guidling principle is opposition.
Example: in 2009-2010 Republicans in Congress introduced and sponsored a number of bills. As soon as any Democrats expressed support for them, the Republicans filibustered their own bills.
12 Likes
At 3:33, having prefaced his remarks by saying his friends in Argentina were careful to point out theirs was a democracy and not to be confused with other countries in South America, Diamond says “The military government [of Argentina] stayed in power for 17 years, smashed world records for sadism…”
Let’s just unpack that shall we?
What could have possibly happened around that time frame (1970s) in Argentina? Did the whole nation fall apart all by itself? Good golly just look at all those coups d’état:
So first we learn that Argentina had a history of coups d’état in the 20th century. How many coups d’état did the U.S. have in the 20th century? Ought we count the Kennedy Assassination? Even if you answer “yes” the answer is one, not six. Hmm. Perhaps the comparison of Argentina’s timeline to our own timeline is not a perfect overlap but maybe there’s a teachable moment of three. Moving on then…
Could there have been U.S. involvement in the any of these coups in Argentina?
Take a wild guess.
With all due respect to Mr. Diamond…
In 2005, Diamond was ranked ninth on a poll by Prospect and Foreign Policy of the world’s top 100 public intellectuals.
(oh dear oh dear, top 100 eh?) … I take issue with the facts he elides–or perhaps were elided for him by the makers of this Big Think/YouTube video–seem to be important and worthy of putting in context, given his discussion.
And… was it only Argentina to have suffered (and may yet still) the attentions of the U.S. CIA? No, it was not:
… and so on. Between Wikipedia’s and Howard Zinn’s cataloguing of CIA “involvement” in “regime change” in other countries:
… I’d say that context counts for an awful lot, Mr. Diamond.
Can we please now talk about what nations are bringing their own forces to bear on the current regime we have in the White House right now? Can we get the man to opine on U.S. immediate history in retrospect and prospect regarding
?
Is this the part where the rest of the world chorus sings “Turnabout Is Fair Play”?
ETA: grammar, typos
3 Likes
